you can say "sigh" all you want. you said "I believe" with ZERO data or sampling I said "I SAW"
what I saw IS anecdotal but its more than your "nothing"
explain to me how I am wrong. no more "sighs" put up or s.... you get the idea.
RODE 40,000 miles? your kidding right? did you miss the "DRIVE" portion. the 5 letters JUST before the 40,000
I can't ride 10 miles yet in one shot :-)
our family business is 54 miles from home. one way. I spend a LOT of time in the car. there is ZERO feasible way to ride my bike to work no matter how good a shape I might be able to get into.
even at 20mph top speed average will be 16 or so (assuming I am ever fit enough to do that) your looking at 8 HOURS of cycling daily. minimum. I have a 12-13 hours shift. yeah thats not happening :-)
I used to drive in excess of 50k a year. my first car (88 cherokee) I still have it. 497,000 miles on it. I really wish I could drive it for a little while to push it over the 500,000 mile mark but I lack the money for that much fuel !!
again your not getting it. your ASSUMPTION is that MORE (not all that is your mistake for using an absolute and trying to hide behind it so its your problem) texters would have resulted in a huge uptick in accidents.
this is a logical fallacy (I said this already I guess you missed it the first time)
you PRESUME that a proportionately equal increase in accidents to an increase in texting.
you then make the illogical connection that this increase will have a direct increase in "contact" ie accidents.
but this requires the logical leap that there will always be A CAR IN THEIR WAY when they swerve and that is pure poppy cock and you know it.
you made a logical connection that is NOT show in "reality"
the FACT IS when most of these people swerve they get insanely lucky that no one is in their path AND this ignores that the ones they are swerving into are not STATIC those drivers WILL ALSO move to AVOID the collision.
there IS in fact a HUGE uptick in "apparent" accidents from distracted driving. the issue is we were not able to ATTRIBUTE these accidents to distractions because we had no way to track them before.
ie the accidents were always their we were simply not aware of their cause.
as we make efforts to track them more we find more and more of these instances are "distracted driving"
I will leave it to you to dig up the reports. my issue is your logical fallacy that you present as fact.
it IS a scientific fact (tested and confirmed) that texting while driving makes you worse than most DUI's because at least the DRUNK tends to be still looking where he is going.
and one more thing. I NEVER said "ALL" texters swerve. only you said that. so thats your problem once again.
your reply has no logical bearing on the conversation at hand. it takes statements out of context intentionally. you are using selective word manipulation intentionally.
Comment ignored. I still await a proper reply.
let's keep that rudiment in the discussion straight. as depicted on the cover of the 7th edition of (not so) effective cycling screed is a photo of a cyclist riding on the lane line and NOT taking the lane in a slow speed, downtown urban traffic core.
NOT taking the lane in slow speed urban traffic to ride 'like a road sneak' while drivers spool by a bicyclist on both sides in what the bicycling community universally recognizes as unshareable lane widths is laden with either inferiority or fear of being crushed by same direction traffic. "Riding like a road sneak" embodies characteristics of "cyclist-inferiority" technique..... hmmm ,perhaps there is a telling exhibition of self-delusion about ones equal worth to vehicles if a bicyclist has to ride between the lane lines as if the cyclist isn't even there.
riding like a EC road sneak is clearly not 'taking the lane'
Q: when does an 'effective cyclist' (sic) take the lane?
A: Well, NOT when they're plying the "road sneak' maneuver and letting cars by on either side.
You attribute lane splitting to "self-delusion about one's equal worth to vehicles", "inferiority" to motorists, or fear of same-direction motor traffic. Furthermore, you attribute this method to being used only in "slow speed urban traffic", which is false; it is more useful in fast urban traffic.
Bek, you should recognize that feeling equal to motorists (rather than your mechanical wording) does not mean that one should delay motorists when it is reasonable not to do so. It means, equality on both sides, that one treats the other in the same way that one wishes to be treated.
It is obvious that Bek wants to carry on a war against vehicular cycling and is willing to use whatever nonsense he can work up to do so. His propaganda should be ignored, but, like any propaganda, it carries just enough supposed reality that it can persuade ill-informed people. Therefore, I take the trouble to answer it. It would be better, of course, if the management of the discussions censored his nonsense, but that rarely occurs.
That mischaracterization of my riding advice is absurd. I am a strong proponent of lane control, and advocate for model bicycle laws that protect cyclists right to control a lane of traffic when travelling slower than prevailing speeds.Quote:
Originally Posted by john forester
-Advice to stay out of the way of same direction traffic for fear of slowing them down is advice straight out of effective cycling, not my playbook.
I'll go get the quotes out of the book at the library tomorrow.
The method of riding not taking the lane and like a road sneak, staying out of the way of same direction traffic unless going the speed of traffic approaching from behind is clearly depicted in the text of effective cycling. This ride the lane line, stay out of the way of traffic is even depicted on the cover of the latest edition of EC in what has every appearance of slow speed downtown urban traffic - conditions i and any other cyclist worth their salt advise clear, assertive lane control.
Clear indicators of inferiority-laden cycling embodied within the 'ec' methods and dogma drive my abundant, post structuralist concern.
John, it's in the book, buddy.
I've NEVER argued cyclists have to stay to the 'far right'. that is absurd. that gross marginalizing misinterpretation of bike laws is found in, you guessed it - "effective cycling"!
http://www.bikeforums.net/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by john forester
Bek, you have taken years arguing that it is improper for cyclists to ride so that they slow motor traffic
John. The ONLY people I've seen instructing bicyclists they have to ride "FAR RIGHT" under state traffic laws are:
1) You. john forester; and
2) motorists that disparage cyclists. (apparently, your peeps! or at least 'peer group') :rolleyes:
Every state that regulates bikes under laws you blatantly mislead as requiring 'far right' operation are very clear about bicyclists being able to control lanes of traffic under many circumstances.
Q: when do you take the lane?
A: far more often than people advocating 'far right' as interpretation of traffic law.
call me crazy but
"you are arguing that official state instructions to cyclists require cyclists to operate far right (as practicable), while here you are arguing for the exceptions to that principle"
I don't see a conflict here ? you imply that he is expressing a conflict but these two views appear to be properly inline to me?
what am I missing?
exceptions to WHAT principle. exceptions to operating to far right or exceptions to "as practicable" ?
as practicable IS an exception to "operate far right"
so I don't see a conflict.