Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > > >

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

View Poll Results: Is anti vc anti motoring?
YES 3 15.79%
NO 10 52.63%
I don't know/not sure 6 31.58%
Voters: 19. You may not vote on this poll

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-02-11, 06:21 AM   #76
ianbrettcooper
Senior Member
 
ianbrettcooper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Silver Spring, MD, USA
Bikes:
Posts: 612
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcubed View Post
Gee, JF, which of the two major political parties has the "pro-incompetency" platform? I must have missed it.
Doesn't the pro-incompetency platform attract politicians from across the political spectrum? I thought that was what made it so effective. I mean, at least Republicans and Democrats can all agree that cyclists belong off the road.
ianbrettcooper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-11, 07:28 AM   #77
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
bipartisan members of the US congressional Bike Caucus

Ackerman, Gary D-NY
Aderholt, Robert R-AL
Akin, Todd R-MO
Altmire, Jason D-PA
Andrews, Rob D-NJ
Baca, Joe D-CA
Bachus, Spencer R-AL
Baldwin, Tammy D-WI
Barrow, John D-GA
Bartlett, Roscoe R-MD
Berkley, Shelley D-NV
Bilirakis, Gus R-FL
Bono, Mary R-CA
Boswell, Leonard D-IA
Braley, Bruce D-IA
Burgess, Michael R-TX
Butterfield, GK D-NC
Calvert, Ken R-CA
Capps, Lois D-CA
Capuano, Mike D-MA
Cardoza, Dennis D-CA
Carnahan, Russ D-MO
Carson, Andre D-IN
Castor, Kathy D-FL
Chandler, Ben D-KY
Clarke, Yvette D-NY
Clay, William Lacy D-MO
Cleaver, Emmanuel D-MO
Coble, Howard R-NC
Cohen, Steve D-TN
Connolly, Gerald D-VA
Cooper, Jim D-TN
Costello, Jerry D-IL
Crowley, Joe D-NY
Cummings, Elijah E. D-MD
Davis, Danny K. D-IL
Davis, Susan D-CA
DeFazio, Peter D-OR
DeGette, Diana D-CO
DeLauro, Rosa D-CT
Diaz-Balart, Lincoln R-FL
Dicks, Norm D-WA
Doggett, Lloyd D-TX
Donnelly, Joe D-IN
Doyle, Mike D-PA
Duncan, John R-TN
Edwards, Donna D-MD
Ellison, Keith D-MN
Emerson, Jo Ann R-MO
Eshoo, Anna D-CA
Farr, Sam D-CA
Fattah, Chaka D-PA
Filner, Bob D-CA
Forbes, Randy R-VA
Franks, Trent R-AZ
Giffords, Gabrielle D-AZ
Goodlatte, Bob R-VA
Grijalva, Raul D-AZ
Gutierrez, Luis V. D-IL
Hall, Ralph R-TX
Harman, Jane D-CA
Himes, Jim D-CT
Hinchey, Maurice D-NY
Hirono, Maizie D-HI
Holden, Tim D-PA
Holt, Rush D-NJ
Honda, Mike D-CA
Inslee, Jay D-WA
Israel, Steve J. D-NY
Jackson, Jesse Jr. D-IL
Jackson-Lee, Sheila D-TX
Johnson, Eddie Bernice D-TX
Johnson, Hank D-GA
Johnson, Timothy V. R-IL
Kildee, Dale D-MI
Kind, Ron D-WI
Kissell, Larry D-NC
Lamborn, Doug R-CO
Lance, Leonard R-NJ
Larsen, Rick D-WA
Larson, John D-CT
Lee, Barbara D-CA
Lewis, John D-GA
Lipinski, Daniel D-IL
Loebsack, David D-IA
Lowey, Nita D-NY
Lujan, Ben Ray D-NM
Lynch, Stephen D-MA
Maloney, Carolyn D-NY
Manzullo, Don R-IL
Marchant, Kenny R-TX
Markey, Edward D-MA
Matheson, Jim D-UT
Matsui, Doris D-CA
McCarthy, Carolyn D-NY
McCaul, Michael R-TX
McCollum, Betty D-MN
McDermott, Jim D-WA
McIntyre, Mike D-NC
McNerney, Jerry D-CA
Meeks, Greg D-NY
Michaud, Michael H. D-ME
Miller, Brad D-NC
Moran, James P. D-VA
Nadler, Jerrold D-NY
Napolitano, Grace D-CA
Neal, Richard D-MA
Norton, Eleanor Holmes D-DC
Olver, John D-MA
Pallone, Frank D-NJ
Pascrell, Bill, Jr. D-NJ
Pastor, Ed D-AZ
Paulsen, Erik R-MN
Perlmutter, Ed D-CO
Peters, Gary D-MI
Peterson, Collin D-NM
Petri, Thomas (co-chair) R-WI
Pingree, Chellie D-ME
Polis, Jarod D-CO
Price, David D-NC
Rahall, Nick D-WV
Rehberg, Denny R-MT
Reyes, Silvestre D-TX
Roskam, Peter R-IL
Ross, Mike D-AR
Roybal-Allard D-CA
Ruppersberger, Dutch D-MD
Ryan, Paul R-WI
Ryan, Tim D-OH
Sanchez, Linda D-CA
Sanchez, Loretta D-CA
Schakowsky, Janice D-IL
Schiff, Adam D-CA
Schwartz, Allyson D-PA
Scott, David D-GA
Serrano, Jose D-NY
Sherman, Brad D-CA
Shimkus, John R-IL
Shuster, Bill R-PA
Simpson, Mike R-ID
Sires, Albio D-NJ
Smith, Adam D-WA
Smith, Chris R-NJ
Spiere, Jackie D-CA
Stark, Pete D-CA
Sullivan, John R-OK
Sutton, Betty D-OH
Thompson, Mike D-CA
Tonko, Paul D-NY
Turner, Mike R-OH
Van Hollen, Chris D-MD
Velazquez, Nydia D-NY
Walden, Greg R-OR
Walz, Time D-MN
Wasserman-Schultz, Debbie D-NY
Waxman, Henry A. D-CA
Weiner, Anthony D-NY
Wilson, Joe R-SC
Woolsey, Lynn D-CA
Wu, David D-OR
Yarmuth, John D-KY
Young, Bill R-FL
Stivers, Steve OH-15



bike caucus members

it seems those opposed to better planning for roadway bike traffic come up with all sorts of misleading arguments.

Aspersions on conservation and patriotism, as if these are virtues Americans shouldn't value, is most foul...

Last edited by Bekologist; 04-02-11 at 07:49 AM.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-11, 08:27 AM   #78
The Human Car
-=Barry=-
 
The Human Car's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Bikes:
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
Simple solutions proposed for complex problems are the product of simple minds.
Advocating complex solutions to simple problems is the product of a deranged mind.

John, anyone can do these zingers all it proves is you are a linguistic bully and have no logical proof of your point.
__________________
Cycling Advocate
http://BaltimoreSpokes.org
. . . o
. . /L
=()>()
The Human Car is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-11, 06:09 PM   #79
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcubed View Post
Gee, JF, which of the two major political parties has the "pro-incompetency" platform? I must have missed it.

Or, rather, is this the old "I'll call people who don't behave as I like a bad name and hope it sticks" gambit? I remember that one...also remember dropping it about the same age I excised "big, fat doodyhead" from my vocabulary.
Motorists invented the incompetent cyclist policy, to suit themselves. The balance for this is probably more Republican than Democratic. Then the environmentalists jumped aboard with even more fervor. The balance for this is probably more Democratic than Republican. For further evidence, consider the list of members of the Congressional bicycle caucus posted by Bekologist.

However, none of these people or public need to openly state that their policy is that of cyclist incompetence. They don't need to ever say it, because that taboo is so ingrained into the America psyche that the only time it becomes obvious is when a few persons maintain that cyclists can be competent to operate in traffic according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. In short, the incompetent cyclist taboo and policy becomes visible only when it is contrasted against the opposite view.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-11, 06:13 PM   #80
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Human Car View Post
Advocating complex solutions to simple problems is the product of a deranged mind.

John, anyone can do these zingers all it proves is you are a linguistic bully and have no logical proof of your point.
Genec's first statement that whenever there is room for arterial highways there is room for bikeways, while correct, ignores all the problems so created. That should be obvious to nearly all on this list. All I pointed out was that fact. Now you, Human Car, provide your input, which is both equally simple and nasty as well. It is no wonder that bicycle advocates have such a poor reputation for credibility and rationality.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-11, 06:28 AM   #81
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
tawdry semantics, that.

Transparently tawdry. to suggest there's promotion of as well as a pervasive taboo against discussing 'incompetent' cycling?

Suggestions that the FHWA encourages incompetency from road users is an outright fabrication.

maybe there should be a taboo at BF against deception?

the question that should be asked is, is the vc political platform anti-bicycling? the answer to that should be readily apparent.

promoting bicycling as an alternative to short, solo automobile trips is yes pro bicycling and anti motoring isasmuch as it promotes bikes versus cars.

oh the shame, the shame! best stop promoting bikes, guys and girls - haven't you heard, its anti motoring.

Last edited by Bekologist; 04-03-11 at 06:33 AM.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-11, 07:22 AM   #82
The Human Car
-=Barry=-
 
The Human Car's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Bikes:
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
Genec's first statement that whenever there is room for arterial highways there is room for bikeways, while correct, ignores all the problems so created. That should be obvious to nearly all on this list. All I pointed out was that fact. Now you, Human Car, provide your input, which is both equally simple and nasty as well. It is no wonder that bicycle advocates have such a poor reputation for credibility and rationality.
This is not Chainguard, the necessity for being anti-bikeways is not a given here and as far as I am concerned you have failed to make any semblance of a rational argument toward that point here as it always seems to breakdown to ad hominem attacks, just as you have done here with Genec.

In regards to your statement in bold, please look in the mirror, the call for credibility and rationality is my point as well. If you have a problem with an equally crass counter-argument that proves that you have failed to provide any facts what so ever, then don't start down that road.
__________________
Cycling Advocate
http://BaltimoreSpokes.org
. . . o
. . /L
=()>()
The Human Car is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-11, 08:04 AM   #83
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 24,094
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Human Car View Post
This is not Chainguard, the necessity for being anti-bikeways is not a given here and as far as I am concerned you have failed to make any semblance of a rational argument toward that point here as it always seems to breakdown to ad hominem attacks, just as you have done here with Genec.

In regards to your statement in bold, please look in the mirror, the call for credibility and rationality is my point as well. If you have a problem with an equally crass counter-argument that proves that you have failed to provide any facts what so ever, then don't start down that road.
Mr. Forester has demonstrated for many years that he has a serious problem with any argument, study, opinion or discussion (crass or polite) that does accept his view as the one and only correct and indisputable argument, study, opinion or discussion on any bicycling topic.

As you infer, Forester is satisfied and comfortable only with Chainguard Brand discussions where the moderator/list owner assures that all commentary toes the Forester line on bicycling advocacy and safety issues. For Forester and his strident vehicular cyclist acolytes, all other arguments are treated as not credible and generated from thought patterns of irrational incompetents and mental defectives with phobic delusions.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-11, 09:09 AM   #84
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Human Car View Post
This is not Chainguard, the necessity for being anti-bikeways is not a given here and as far as I am concerned you have failed to make any semblance of a rational argument toward that point here as it always seems to breakdown to ad hominem attacks, just as you have done here with Genec.

In regards to your statement in bold, please look in the mirror, the call for credibility and rationality is my point as well. If you have a problem with an equally crass counter-argument that proves that you have failed to provide any facts what so ever, then don't start down that road.
The facts of the matter are that Genec provided the totally insufficient argument that since we spend space on arterial roads then bikeways are justified because we could use that space for bikeways. I responded by stating the obvious, that simple solutions to complex issues are the sign of simplistic thought. Then Human Car responded describing me as of deranged mind and a bullying personality, and added that I had provided no evidence for my statement. My statements about the arguments are obvious on their face; Genec's was simplistic, Human Car's added nastiness. The only other item of evidence needed is that the bikeways issue is complex, which is not something that anyone seriously doubts.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-11, 09:15 AM   #85
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
tawdry semantics, that.

Transparently tawdry. to suggest there's promotion of as well as a pervasive taboo against discussing 'incompetent' cycling?

Suggestions that the FHWA encourages incompetency from road users is an outright fabrication.

maybe there should be a taboo at BF against deception?

the question that should be asked is, is the vc political platform anti-bicycling? the answer to that should be readily apparent.

promoting bicycling as an alternative to short, solo automobile trips is yes pro bicycling and anti motoring isasmuch as it promotes bikes versus cars.

oh the shame, the shame! best stop promoting bikes, guys and girls - haven't you heard, its anti motoring.
Nearly all states have laws against competent cycling in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. The governmental bikeway standards are openly stated to be suitable for use by incompetent cyclists. But, of course, they don't say incompetent, they say for cyclists of all abilities, which naturally has to include the incompetent, who are the majority of bicycle users in America anyway.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-11, 11:18 AM   #86
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 9,628
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 202 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Human Car View Post
Advocating complex solutions to simple problems is the product of a deranged mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Human Car View Post
This is not Chainguard, the necessity for being anti-bikeways is not a given here and as far as I am concerned you have failed to make any semblance of a rational argument toward that point here as it always seems to breakdown to ad hominem attacks, just as you have done here with Genec.
You complained about ad hominem attacks merely 4 posts after making one yourself!
njkayaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-11, 08:17 PM   #87
ianbrettcooper
Senior Member
 
ianbrettcooper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Silver Spring, MD, USA
Bikes:
Posts: 612
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The problem here is with the word 'incompetent'. It's an unfortunate 'catch-all' word that allows some folks to define everyone else as incompetent, and also allows anti-VCers to claim that all VCers include everyone but themselves as incompetent. I think we need to come up with a better word, or a more accurate description of what it means to be an incompetent cyclist. After all, I've been defined by my local DOT official as one of the "Strong and Fearless", yet I can't even perform a quick turn to save my life. I know the LAB's Smart Cycling course like I know the back of my hand, yet I doubt I've ever cycled faster than 30mph. I've cycled 10,000 miles through 15 countries, yet the Tour de France leaves me cold. So am I elite or incompetent?

The word is surely meaningless, when it can only create division. A better word would surely be 'unsafe'. All of the behaviours that we decry are surely unsafe. That is what incompetent cycling is, at it's root - and that is, I think, a far better way to approach this issue.
ianbrettcooper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-11, 06:42 AM   #88
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
by substituting 'unsafe' in the place of 'incompetent' the forester arguments falls apart like the pablum it is.

the FHWA does not plan for increasing 'unsafe' bicycling, nor does any agency tasked with increasing the rideability of our cities.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-11, 07:03 AM   #89
The Human Car
-=Barry=-
 
The Human Car's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Bikes:
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
The facts of the matter are that Genec provided the totally insufficient argument that since we spend space on arterial roads then bikeways are justified because we could use that space for bikeways. I responded by stating the obvious, that simple solutions to complex issues are the sign of simplistic thought. Then Human Car responded describing me as of deranged mind and a bullying personality, and added that I had provided no evidence for my statement. My statements about the arguments are obvious on their face; Genec's was simplistic, Human Car's added nastiness. The only other item of evidence needed is that the bikeways issue is complex, which is not something that anyone seriously doubts.
In Maryland when they acquire additional land for added capacity they (generally) include a bikeable shoulder which I think is rather nice and I thought this was Genec's point. If you're against any all extra width because it is too simple but yet support always using the same travel lane as cars because it's simpler yet. IMHO there is a failing to make a clear logical point.
__________________
Cycling Advocate
http://BaltimoreSpokes.org
. . . o
. . /L
=()>()
The Human Car is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-11, 07:19 AM   #90
The Human Car
-=Barry=-
 
The Human Car's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Bikes:
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Human Car
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester
Simple solutions proposed for complex problems are the product of simple minds.
Advocating complex solutions to simple problems is the product of a deranged mind.
John, anyone can do these zingers ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Human Car
This is not Chainguard, the necessity for being anti-bikeways is not a given here and as far as I am concerned you have failed to make any semblance of a rational argument toward that point here as it always seems to breakdown to ad hominem attacks, just as you have done here with Genec.
You complained about ad hominem attacks merely 4 posts after making one yourself!
The first post was demonstrating you can do one line zingers in any direction you want and one line zingers are not part of a logical argument.

So which is bad? Being simple or being complex? Who has the most convincing argument?

I hoped to demonstrate in the first post that neither is a convincing argument but an ad hominem attack. And to PROVE to John that he has not put forth a logical argument but is engaging in personal attacks.

Does my post mirror John's? You bet, that's the point.
__________________
Cycling Advocate
http://BaltimoreSpokes.org
. . . o
. . /L
=()>()
The Human Car is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-11, 08:11 AM   #91
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 9,628
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 202 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Human Car View Post
I hoped to demonstrate in the first post that neither is a convincing argument but an ad hominem attack. And to PROVE to John that he has not put forth a logical argument but is engaging in personal attacks.

Does my post mirror John's? You bet, that's the point.
We'll see how well it works! At least, you are doing it for a noble purpose!
njkayaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-11, 03:54 PM   #92
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianbrettcooper View Post
The problem here is with the word 'incompetent'. It's an unfortunate 'catch-all' word that allows some folks to define everyone else as incompetent, and also allows anti-VCers to claim that all VCers include everyone but themselves as incompetent. I think we need to come up with a better word, or a more accurate description of what it means to be an incompetent cyclist. After all, I've been defined by my local DOT official as one of the "Strong and Fearless", yet I can't even perform a quick turn to save my life. I know the LAB's Smart Cycling course like I know the back of my hand, yet I doubt I've ever cycled faster than 30mph. I've cycled 10,000 miles through 15 countries, yet the Tour de France leaves me cold. So am I elite or incompetent?

The word is surely meaningless, when it can only create division. A better word would surely be 'unsafe'. All of the behaviours that we decry are surely unsafe. That is what incompetent cycling is, at it's root - and that is, I think, a far better way to approach this issue.
The concept of a competent cyclist has been defined many times in the course of these discussions as applying to cyclists who obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. The concept of incompetent cyclist is, therefore, one who does not obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, either because he doesn't know how or because he refuses to do so. It's that simple.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-11, 04:06 PM   #93
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Originally Posted by John Forester
The facts of the matter are that Genec provided the totally insufficient argument that since we spend space on arterial roads then bikeways are justified because we could use that space for bikeways. I responded by stating the obvious, that simple solutions to complex issues are the sign of simplistic thought. Then Human Car responded describing me as of deranged mind and a bullying personality, and added that I had provided no evidence for my statement. My statements about the arguments are obvious on their face; Genec's was simplistic, Human Car's added nastiness. The only other item of evidence needed is that the bikeways issue is complex, which is not something that anyone seriously doubts.


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Human Car View Post
In Maryland when they acquire additional land for added capacity they (generally) include a bikeable shoulder which I think is rather nice and I thought this was Genec's point. If you're against any all extra width because it is too simple but yet support always using the same travel lane as cars because it's simpler yet. IMHO there is a failing to make a clear logical point.
Your point is not that which Genec was making. All you are saying is that extra width is nice when it is made available, as it is in some circumstances. If I remember the discussions of Maryland law, cyclists are prohibited from major rural arterials unless they have a shoulder.

But also, pay attention to the history. I have been arguing for wide outside through lanes since before 1980, so don't bring up the canard that I am against it.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-11, 04:08 PM   #94
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Human Car View Post
The first post was demonstrating you can do one line zingers in any direction you want and one line zingers are not part of a logical argument.

So which is bad? Being simple or being complex? Who has the most convincing argument?

I hoped to demonstrate in the first post that neither is a convincing argument but an ad hominem attack. And to PROVE to John that he has not put forth a logical argument but is engaging in personal attacks.

Does my post mirror John's? You bet, that's the point.
Human Car, please specify the argument I have made that is not logical. Your writing doesn't so indicate.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-11, 07:37 PM   #95
ianbrettcooper
Senior Member
 
ianbrettcooper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Silver Spring, MD, USA
Bikes:
Posts: 612
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
The concept of a competent cyclist has been defined many times in the course of these discussions as applying to cyclists who obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. The concept of incompetent cyclist is, therefore, one who does not obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, either because he doesn't know how or because he refuses to do so. It's that simple.
It's that simple to you or me. But how we define stuff isn't the same as how others define that same stuff. And there are those for whom the word 'incompetent' is a nicely wrapped gift that keeps on giving ammunition which they can use to attack VC. In the face of that, merely saying "Incompetence means what I say it means" is not a very useful argument.
ianbrettcooper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-11, 09:01 PM   #96
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianbrettcooper View Post
It's that simple to you or me. But how we define stuff isn't the same as how others define that same stuff. And there are those for whom the word 'incompetent' is a nicely wrapped gift that keeps on giving ammunition which they can use to attack VC. In the face of that, merely saying "Incompetence means what I say it means" is not a very useful argument.
Well, what would we name a motorist who continually failed his driving test? Or who got through the test (depends on the quality, even the presence of a driving test) and, when on the road, ran stop signs, changed lanes without looking and yielding, drove on the wrong side of the road, all without recognizing that he was committing errors? Dangerous, yes, but the usual name for such behavior is related to competence. We use the same name for evaluating surgeons, or house painters, or football players, or pilots.

Furthermore, the discussions in which the phrases competent cyclists and incompetent cyclists are used are always about traffic cycling. Nobody has been applying those names to, for example, international touring skills or the ability to stretch one's endurance.

Yes, it is correct that many people object to having their skills and behavior described as incompetent. Well, so they should be ashamed of such negligence; it is shameful. But it is accurate; slippery euphemisms won't carry the same force. Bicycle transportation in America has suffered for decades from concealment of its deficiencies and promotion of its deficiencies by both government and public. We need to develop some truth-talking so that others beside vehicular cyclists can be faced with their errors.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-11, 09:05 PM   #97
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The collective "we" need to develop some truth talking, absolutely.

Can a competent cyclist choose to operate on the wide, uninterrupted shoulder of a roadway like this so as to allow motor vehicles travelling 65mph pass them by?

Can a competent cyclist choose a bikelane to the left of all turning traffic at an intersection like this?

The truth of the matter is clear. Predicating cyclists that don't follow the rules for drivers of vehicles are incompetent is a false statement. That is false framing. And quite insulting to bicyclists, by the way. Ian's right about the polarization, most foul.

As to the thread topic . If promoting a bicycling schema more substantive than the dysfunctional american road use paradigm can somehow be mischaracterized as 'anti-motoring' to critics addled with tailpipe gas, thats not a problem with better planning for roadway bike traffic. thats a problem with the status quotians.

If the promotion of equitable access to bicycling versus continued automobile dependency can somehow be worked into a negative by the ardent supporters of failing to plan for roadway bike traffic, so be it.

That's not a bad position for bicycling advocacy to be in.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg bikestripes2.jpg (32.6 KB, 0 views)
File Type: jpg bigshoulderquil.jpg (85.4 KB, 1 views)

Last edited by Bekologist; 04-05-11 at 07:20 AM.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-11, 09:33 PM   #98
ianbrettcooper
Senior Member
 
ianbrettcooper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Silver Spring, MD, USA
Bikes:
Posts: 612
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
Well, what would we name a motorist who continually failed his driving test?...
You're just not listening to me John. You're responding to me about something completely unrelated to what I'm telling you. Maybe this is why you don't get much traction outside the VC community.

Once again, it doesn't matter what YOU think competence and incompetence are. It matters what the people listening to you think they are - and they don't think they're the same thing you do. So if you can't adapt your message to them, they're never going to be able to hear you, nor will they ever be likely to change. You may not care about that, but I do, because I want a future in which my daughter can continue to cycle on the road until she's an old lady. I want to see someone advocating for my daughter's rights persuasively in the public forum. I do not want our spokespeople to be ranting on about incompetence to ever dwindling groups of supporters while the people who actually make changes are taking away my right to cycle. The political activism model exemplified by Life of Brian's 'People's Front of Judea' is not one we ought to be following. You can't just yell 'Splitter' at everyone who doesn't share your exact mindset and then expect things to go your way.

Feel free to once again explain to me what incompetence is, and how people should be ashamed of it. But don't think for one minute that that addresses my concerns. I'm not asking you to find euphemisms. I'm asking you to find ways to persuade, rather than alienate. You can call people incompetent all you want, but do it in a way that makes them open to a solution. The thing is, I'm not sure you can do that, and your responses here are confirming that suspicion, because we're not having a dialogue here - I'm feeling like I'm trying to engage with an answering machine spouting a message that was recorded over 30 years ago. This is not the '70s bike boom. The message has to change in order for a modern audience to appreciate it.

Last edited by ianbrettcooper; 04-04-11 at 09:50 PM.
ianbrettcooper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-11, 06:59 AM   #99
The Human Car
-=Barry=-
 
The Human Car's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Bikes:
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
Originally Posted by John Forester
The facts of the matter are that Genec provided the totally insufficient argument that since we spend space on arterial roads then bikeways are justified because we could use that space for bikeways. I responded by stating the obvious, that simple solutions to complex issues are the sign of simplistic thought. Then Human Car responded describing me as of deranged mind and a bullying personality, and added that I had provided no evidence for my statement. My statements about the arguments are obvious on their face; Genec's was simplistic, Human Car's added nastiness. The only other item of evidence needed is that the bikeways issue is complex, which is not something that anyone seriously doubts.




Your point is not that which Genec was making. All you are saying is that extra width is nice when it is made available, as it is in some circumstances. If I remember the discussions of Maryland law, cyclists are prohibited from major rural arterials unless they have a shoulder.

But also, pay attention to the history. I have been arguing for wide outside through lanes since before 1980, so don't bring up the canard that I am against it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by genec View Post
If there is room to build high speed roads, there is room to build proper bikeways! It is as simple as that.
I am sorry but this sounds closer to what I am saying then what you are saying. High speed roads require a clear zone, it is a simple matter of paving into the clear zone.

The Maryland law under discussion has several components so it works out if they want to have a speed limit above 50mph they MUST provide a shoulder for our use. No shoulder, no speed limit above 50 and we can use the travel way. Or shorter, there is no prohibition on bicycle travel just mandatory shoulder use on roads with a speed limit above 50.
__________________
Cycling Advocate
http://BaltimoreSpokes.org
. . . o
. . /L
=()>()
The Human Car is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-11, 07:15 AM   #100
The Human Car
-=Barry=-
 
The Human Car's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Bikes:
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Human Car
The first post was demonstrating you can do one line zingers in any direction you want and one line zingers are not part of a logical argument.

So which is bad? Being simple or being complex? Who has the most convincing argument?

I hoped to demonstrate in the first post that neither is a convincing argument but an ad hominem attack. And to PROVE to John that he has not put forth a logical argument but is engaging in personal attacks.

Does my post mirror John's? You bet, that's the point.
Human Car, please specify the argument I have made that is not logical. Your writing doesn't so indicate.
To spell that out without the nasties:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester
Simple solutions proposed for complex problems are [not good]
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Human Car
Advocating complex solutions to simple problems [are not good.]
What's the logical "proof" for your statement?

Providing a shoulder on a high speed road is simple, so you are against shoulders simply because they are simple?
__________________
Cycling Advocate
http://BaltimoreSpokes.org
. . . o
. . /L
=()>()
The Human Car is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:52 AM.