Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 154
  1. #76
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    pj7, I don't mean to derail your thread. But you stated early on that you have "not noticed that society nor government is against vehicular cycling".

    For someone who has not noticed that, I think it would be difficult to understand much of what VC advocacy is about, and is likely to contribute to misinterpretations and taking offense by what VC advocates say when none was intended.

    So I'm trying to understand how it is that you have not noticed it, when, at the same time you admit that a police officer who believes cylclists do not belong on some streets is part of the mainstream.

  2. #77
    pj7
    pj7 is offline
    On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,543
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    pj7, I don't mean to derail your thread. But you stated early on that you have "not noticed that society nor government is against vehicular cycling".

    For someone who has not noticed that, I think it would be difficult to understand much of what VC advocacy is about, and is likely to contribute to misinterpretations and taking offense by what VC advocates say when none was intended.

    So I'm trying to understand how it is that you have not noticed it, when, at the same time you admit that a police officer who believes cylclists do not belong on some streets is part of the mainstream.
    One police officer, nor a plethora (I love that word) of police officers should or could be used to as an indicative of the "government and public" as a whole in this case. In my personaly experience I have encountered more power hungry and unfriendly police officers than I have the well meaning ones who actually seem to be interested more in doing the common good than flaunting around the power which the public has given them. But I do not group "all" police officers in the "power hungry" category. In fact I treat most of them on here (deputyjones for instance) with repect and comradery.
    I also said in that statement that you are referring to that it would seem to me that the public and government are more pro than con and even gave a simple example to show why I felt that, I easily could give many more. In fact, I can give more examples of cycling being accepted than not!

    Helmet Head, I do see what the whole VC thing is about... I actually do get it. However I do not agree with the (what we will refer to as the JF-HH-VC) "whole" of it.
    I agree that cyclists fare better when they act as and are treated like operators of vehicles. But we act more than we are treated so that statement is really just that, a statement, and doesn't help all that much out there on the roads.
    I agree that being visible and cyclist placement is important to safety. But I don't agree that riding on the shoulder or a bike lane is in any way more dangerous because I feel that things off to the side are seen just as well as things in front of motorists and the accidents that do happen are caused by other reasons.
    I agree that a person needs some form of confidence to be able to ride in traffic safely, but I do not agree that they need an "attitude" as well.
    However, I do not agree that there is any type of undiagnosed (or diagnosed by you or JF) syndrome that everyone in the public has (other than VCists) that cause them to feel they are inferior to motorists. Rather I feel that motor traffic is superior or pedal traffic.

    See, I do agree with the underlying primciples of the VC movement, I just do not agree with JF-HH-VC and many others feel the same way. Things are not always black and white. You asked me earlier if I was "with you or against you", well actually you used "us" but you get the picture. I'll answer that now. No, I am not with "you". I am with the "others". The ones who are out there every day practicing what VC should be and not the pseudo-religeon it has become.
    I am a sig Virus. Please put me in your sig so that I can continue to replicate.

  3. #78
    pj7
    pj7 is offline
    On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,543
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester
    It needs to be recognized that one side of this discussion regarding the proper way to cycle in traffic is based on facts and reason, while the other side is being argued from emotions without the support of relevant facts but using irrelevant facts in a pretense of reason. It is just plain unfortunate, although expectable, that those persons whose arguments are based on emotions without facts find that their arguments are described, accurately, as unreasonable, illogical, and even just plain illiterate. That is the necessary fate of such arguments, and those who advance them are made unhappy because the assault is on their feelings rather than on their facts. There it is.
    But which side of this discussion is the right side that you refer to?
    There are those of us who cyle vehicularly and appreciate good facilities.
    And there are those of us who cycle vehicularly and have formed a pseudo-religeon around "attitudes" and "ignoring the white stripe".
    Then there are the ones who just ride and don't care about all of this "stuff".
    And there are many other sides.

    Your comment here makes it seem like Spy vs. Spy where it is black and white and one side is right and one side is wrong. You say that one side is talking about the proper way to cycle and the other side is.... what exactly? Talking about the improper way to cycle? I know you don't group me in with the same group as you here, so I am obviously the other side right? And if your side is cycling "proper" then I am not? I doubt that. I cycle vehicularly, I obey the laws, and I obey them as best I can because so much as a traffic ticket will break my parole and send me back to a place I do not care to be. I love my family and don't plan on leaving them, so I follow the rules of the road. But I like good bike facilities, does that make me wrong?
    So yeah, emotions are playing a big role in things. I don't mean to put words in your mouth here but I will when I say what your statement is doing is telling me that you are right and I am wrong and that is exaclt how it feels right now. But I am following the rules of the road... so what am I doing wrong?

    And John, when you do make a statement like this, and repeatedly make it as some on here do, and keep making emotional and personal attacks, it tends to push others away from you and discredit you. And this is the purpose of my thread, to demonstrate that and show that others feel the same.
    I am a sig Virus. Please put me in your sig so that I can continue to replicate.

  4. #79
    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 pj7
    One police officer, nor a plethora (I love that word) of police officers should or could be used to as an indicative of the "government and public" as a whole in this case. In my personaly experience I have encountered more power hungry and unfriendly police officers than I have the well meaning ones who actually seem to be interested more in doing the common good than flaunting around the power which the public has given them. But I do not group "all" police officers in the "power hungry" category. In fact I treat most of them on here (deputyjones for instance) with repect and comradery.
    I also said in that statement that you are referring to that it would seem to me that the public and government are more pro than con and even gave a simple example to show why I felt that, I easily could give many more. In fact, I can give more examples of cycling being accepted than not!
    Examples of cycling being accepted, or vehicular cycling being accepted?


    Helmet Head, I do see what the whole VC thing is about... I actually do get it. However I do not agree with the (what we will refer to as the JF-HH-VC) "whole" of it.
    I agree that cyclists fare better when they act as and are treated like operators of vehicles. But we act more than we are treated so that statement is really just that, a statement, and doesn't help all that much out there on the roads.
    I agree that being visible and cyclist placement is important to safety.
    Good.

    But I don't agree that riding on the shoulder or a bike lane is in any way more dangerous because I feel that things off to the side are seen just as well as things in front of motorists and the accidents that do happen are caused by other reasons.
    That's a pet theory of mine, and a side issue besides (the much more important reasons to ride further left have to do with potential hazards up ahead, not behind). Please don't confuse it with VC.

    I agree that a person needs some form of confidence to be able to ride in traffic safely, but I do not agree that they need an "attitude" as well.
    Confidence and attitude are intrinsically connected. Gaining confidence change's one's attitude.

    However, I do not agree that there is any type of undiagnosed (or diagnosed by you or JF) syndrome that everyone in the public has (other than VCists) that cause them to feel they are inferior to motorists. Rather I feel that motor traffic is superior or pedal traffic.
    Motorist superiority is the flipside of the cyclist inferiority coin: same thing.

    See, I do agree with the underlying primciples of the VC movement, I just do not agree with JF-HH-VC and many others feel the same way. Things are not always black and white. You asked me earlier if I was "with you or against you", well actually you used "us" but you get the picture. I'll answer that now. No, I am not with "you". I am with the "others". The ones who are out there every day practicing what VC should be and not the pseudo-religeon it has become.
    I'm unclear on what the real significant differences are.

  5. #80
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by pj7
    However, I do not agree that there is any type of undiagnosed (or diagnosed by you or JF) syndrome that everyone in the public has (other than VCists) that cause them to feel they are inferior to motorists. Rather I feel that motor traffic is superior or pedal traffic.
    Well, if you feel that motor traffic is superior to pedal traffic, then you also feel that pedal traffic is inferior to motor traffic. Are you trying to make a distinction between traffic, as a kind of collective noun, and the people who carry it on? For example, it is obvious that on the basis of ton-miles-per-hour, motor traffic is superior to pedal traffic. But so what? That is irrelevant when discussing the proper way for cyclists to behave in traffic, which is a matter of relationships between drivers.

    I suggest that your statement, if it has any relevance to this discussion, carries the meaning that you feel that cyclists are inferior to motorists in some way or another. Which is precisely the meaning of cyclist-inferiority attitude, without considering the varying strengths that it exhibits in different people.

  6. #81
    pj7
    pj7 is offline
    On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,543
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Examples of cycling being accepted, or vehicular cycling being accepted?



    Good.


    That's a pet theory of mine, and a side issue besides (the much more important reasons to ride further left have to do with potential hazards up ahead, not behind). Please don't confuse it with VC.


    Confidence and attitude are intrinsically connected. Gaining confidence change's one's attitude.


    Motorist superiority is the flipside of the cyclist inferiority coin: same thing.


    I'm unclear on what the real significant differences are.
    I'll address and answer these later (either later tonight or tomorrow), right now I'm going to spend some time with my family.
    I am a sig Virus. Please put me in your sig so that I can continue to replicate.

  7. #82
    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)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    If Newton, Darwin and Einstein seemed condescending to you, would you disagree with the ideas that they stood for?
    If Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot seemed nice and friendly, would you agree with their ideals?
    You've got to be kidding! You are not on the same level as any of these guys.

    If George Bush told you without condescension in the State of the Union Address that Iraq sought uranium from Africa would you agree with his ideas? You guys are more on the level of this comparison.

    You sir, are no Einstein.
    ~Diane
    Recumbents: Lightning Thunderbolt, '06 Catrike Pocket. Upright: Trek Mountain Bike.
    8.5 mile commute. I like bike lanes.

  8. #83
    pj7
    pj7 is offline
    On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,543
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester
    I suggest that your statement, if it has any relevance to this discussion, carries the meaning that you feel that cyclists are inferior to motorists in some way or another. Which is precisely the meaning of cyclist-inferiority attitude, without considering the varying strengths that it exhibits in different people.
    I'll address this now, then I'm off.
    I do not think cyclists (the person) are inferior to motorists (the person) but the vehicles themselves are inferior and superior respectively just by the shear numbers, mass in size, and damage that they can cause. As well as the facilities for them, the cost of them, the accepted use of them, and everything else that goes along those lines. However, there is no syndrome involved here! It's just a fact of being.
    I am a sig Virus. Please put me in your sig so that I can continue to replicate.

  9. #84
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by pj7
    I'll address this now, then I'm off.
    I do not think cyclists (the person) are inferior to motorists (the person) but the vehicles themselves are inferior and superior respectively just by the shear numbers, mass in size, and damage that they can cause. As well as the facilities for them, the cost of them, the accepted use of them, and everything else that goes along those lines. However, there is no syndrome involved here! It's just a fact of being.
    In that case, your feeling is irrelevant to the discussion.

  10. #85
    your nightmare gal chipcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Cracker Factory
    Posts
    24,353
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    This is pure and utter nonsense.

    Is it insulting or condescending for me to say that? Is it insulting and condescending for Chipcom to demean VC and those of us who promote it the way that he does?

    If you see my words as insulting and condescending, but not his, could it be due to a bias?
    You can call it what you want...my skin isn't as thin as yours. I'm simply stating my observations...if others agree based on their observations or not, that is up to them...only you would see it as a bias, everybody is picking on you...wah, wah, wah. So now you have insulted everyone's ability to form independent opinions if their opinion doesn't happen to jibe with yours....way to go, diplomat.
    "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

  11. #86
    your nightmare gal chipcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Cracker Factory
    Posts
    24,353
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleBigMan
    Ok, Chip, you didn't want my joke. (You're the one wearing the big hair! )

    Seriously, though, "VC advocacy" is what, exactly? I see it take varying forms and degrees, and areas of emphasis. Saying that everyone who engages in "VC advocacy" is puffing themselves up to feel important is an unsubstantiated statement, and misleading.
    Actually it's quite accurate in my experience. Are you proclaiming yourself a 'VC advocate', and thus an exception to my experience, LBM?. (FYI, I don't consider Steve G and others as 'vc advocates' because they represent cycling as a whole and don't let their egos and wacky theories get in the way of effective advocacy.)
    "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

  12. #87
    your nightmare gal chipcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Cracker Factory
    Posts
    24,353
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester
    The point has been repeatedly made that a great part of this discussion concerns emotions, implying that careful treatment of the emotions of one's opposite discussant is more likely to be persuasive than is ignoring those emotions. Unfortunately, when this has been done, the antagonism has increased rather than decreased.

    It needs to be recognized that one side of this discussion regarding the proper way to cycle in traffic is based on facts and reason, while the other side is being argued from emotions without the support of relevant facts but using irrelevant facts in a pretense of reason. It is just plain unfortunate, although expectable, that those persons whose arguments are based on emotions without facts find that their arguments are described, accurately, as unreasonable, illogical, and even just plain illiterate. That is the necessary fate of such arguments, and those who advance them are made unhappy because the assault is on their feelings rather than on their facts. There it is.
    So when are you going to join the side of facts and reason, John?
    "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

  13. #88
    your nightmare gal chipcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Cracker Factory
    Posts
    24,353
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    pj7, I don't mean to derail your thread. But you stated early on that you have "not noticed that society nor government is against vehicular cycling".

    For someone who has not noticed that, I think it would be difficult to understand much of what VC advocacy is about, and is likely to contribute to misinterpretations and taking offense by what VC advocates say when none was intended.

    So I'm trying to understand how it is that you have not noticed it, when, at the same time you admit that a police officer who believes cylclists do not belong on some streets is part of the mainstream.
    You just don't like cops...in fact if I recall, some of your posts, you don't think they are educated or capable of being educated. Just cuz you are a cop hater doesn't mean that dumb/bad cops are 'mainstream'. My great grandaddy was a cop, my dad was cop, I was a cop, I know literally hundreds of cops...thanks for the insult...again.
    "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

  14. #89
    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 chipcom
    You can call it what you want...my skin isn't as thin as yours. I'm simply stating my observations...if others agree based on their observations or not, that is up to them...only you would see it as a bias, everybody is picking on you...wah, wah, wah. So now you have insulted everyone's ability to form independent opinions if their opinion doesn't happen to jibe with yours....way to go, diplomat.
    As far as I know, this is a cycling forum, and it's for exchanging our opinions (and, hopefully, the reasons we hold those opinions) about cycling.

    This forum is not for exchanging our opinions about other forum members, or what they give a crap about, or what or who they want to advocate for.

    Quote Originally Posted by chipcom
    You don't give two craps about normal, everyday cyclists...let alone occassional rec cyclists. You want to advocate for cycling...drop all the VC zealot BS and someone might take you seriously. You're riding for your brand, not for cycling or cyclists.

  15. #90
    your nightmare gal chipcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Cracker Factory
    Posts
    24,353
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester
    I presume that you consider it significant to proper cyclist behavior that motor traffic consists of vehicles that are larger, heavier, and faster than bicycle traffic. Those items are irrelevant to the question of the proper way to cycle in traffic. The fact that you think that these are significantly important determinants of proper cyclist behavior is just another bit of evidence for the cyclist-inferiority attitude and its harmful effects.
    No John, I think this post is an indication of your total lack of connection to the real world. You tell me that size and speed is not a factor when sharing the road with 18 wheelers doing 55-70mph within just a few feet of you...go ahead, I dare you.
    "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

  16. #91
    your nightmare gal chipcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Cracker Factory
    Posts
    24,353
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    As far as I know, this is a cycling forum, and it's for exchanging our opinions (and, hopefully, the reasons we hold those opinions) about cycling.

    This forum is not for exchanging our opinions about other forum members, or what they give a crap about, or what or who they want to advocate for.
    Hard for us to take your opinions seriously based on our perception of your credibility....of course you don't believe that credibility counts...which is just one reason why so many of us don't consider you credible.
    "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

  17. #92
    Cheesmonger Extraordinair natelutkjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    417
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    +1 on that ^
    Just one of many reasons why I take no heed in the gospel of helmet head
    Last edited by natelutkjohn; 05-14-07 at 06:32 PM.

  18. #93
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by chipcom
    No John, I think this post is an indication of your total lack of connection to the real world. You tell me that size and speed is not a factor when sharing the road with 18 wheelers doing 55-70mph within just a few feet of you...go ahead, I dare you.
    I do not change my style of cycling because of the presence of motor traffic. My style of cycling is consistent with the presence of motor traffic. About the only difference between large vehicles, however many wheels they have, and smaller vehicles, is the need to handle wind blast.

  19. #94
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by chipcom
    So when are you going to join the side of facts and reason, John?
    You haven't shown facts and reason in your comments; no reason to join you.

  20. #95
    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 John Forester
    In that case, your feeling is irrelevant to the discussion.
    What..........Sorry I just have to comment.............
    How in the world can the feelings of pj7 be irrelevent to the discussion, when pj7 is the originator of this thread, and has done a great job trying to keep on subject.
    In my oppinion, the only sane posts in this thread are in fact those of pj7.
    I'm not totally useless....I can be used as a BAD example.

  21. #96
    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 BLIZZ
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester
    In that case, your feeling is irrelevant to the discussion.
    What..........Sorry I just have to comment.............
    How in the world can the feelings of pj7 be irrelevent to the discussion, when pj7 is the originator of this thread, and has done a great job trying to keep on subject.
    In my oppinion, the only sane posts in this thread are in fact those of pj7.
    The way you guys liberally and consistently make literal interpretations out of context in order to make irrelevant points is uncanny.

    No one says pj7's feelings (plural) are irrelevant.

    Mr. Forester said one particular feeling -- that motor "vehicles themselves are inferior and superior respectively just by the shear numbers, mass in size, and damage that they can cause" -- is irrelevant to this discussion about whether cyclists -- the people -- are equal, inferior or superior to motorists.

    This, by the way, is one of the problems with anthropomorphizing cars, and talking about "cars and bikes driving on the road" rather than motorists and cyclists on the road.

    No one claims that cars are equal to bikes!

    But it's important to remember that it's not cars driving down the road, it's motorists.

  22. #97
    Non-Custom Member zeytoun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    My Bikes
    1975-1980 SR road bike
    Posts
    1,613
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    But it's important to remember that it's not cars driving down the road, it's motorists.
    Right, unless it's a Lexus parallel parking. In which case it's drivng itself.
    I am a mutated sig Virus. Please put me in your sig so that I can continue to replicate and mutate, blah!.

  23. #98
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by BLIZZ
    What..........Sorry I just have to comment.............
    How in the world can the feelings of pj7 be irrelevent to the discussion, when pj7 is the originator of this thread, and has done a great job trying to keep on subject.
    In my oppinion, the only sane posts in this thread are in fact those of pj7.
    Some things are relevant to the discussion of the proper way to cycle in traffic, and some things are irrelevant. The subject should be factual, not emotional. Therefore, feelings are irrelevant.

  24. #99
    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 zeytoun
    Right, unless it's a Lexus parallel parking. In which case it's drivng itself.
    Not driving, only steering.

    http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2...0_parking.html

    "Basically, the car controls only the steering. If you let it, it will drive into the car behind you."

  25. #100
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by pj7
    But which side of this discussion is the right side that you refer to?
    There are those of us who cyle vehicularly and appreciate good facilities.
    And there are those of us who cycle vehicularly and have formed a pseudo-religeon around "attitudes" and "ignoring the white stripe".
    Then there are the ones who just ride and don't care about all of this "stuff".
    And there are many other sides.

    Your comment here makes it seem like Spy vs. Spy where it is black and white and one side is right and one side is wrong. You say that one side is talking about the proper way to cycle and the other side is.... what exactly? Talking about the improper way to cycle? I know you don't group me in with the same group as you here, so I am obviously the other side right? And if your side is cycling "proper" then I am not? I doubt that. I cycle vehicularly, I obey the laws, and I obey them as best I can because so much as a traffic ticket will break my parole and send me back to a place I do not care to be. I love my family and don't plan on leaving them, so I follow the rules of the road. But I like good bike facilities, does that make me wrong?
    So yeah, emotions are playing a big role in things. I don't mean to put words in your mouth here but I will when I say what your statement is doing is telling me that you are right and I am wrong and that is exaclt how it feels right now. But I am following the rules of the road... so what am I doing wrong?

    And John, when you do make a statement like this, and repeatedly make it as some on here do, and keep making emotional and personal attacks, it tends to push others away from you and discredit you. And this is the purpose of my thread, to demonstrate that and show that others feel the same.

    I think that I have never described your cycling as being non-vehicular. Indeed, I know nothing about it except what you may have written herein. However, I do object to your advocacy of bikeways, because bikeways are contrary to vehicular cycling methods. Why do you think bikeways can be good, if you really believe that obeying the rules of the road is best?

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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
  •