Originally Posted by
Bekologist
John, one thing the signature effective(sic) cyclist "Road sneak" technique is NOT is "taking the lane".
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 is laden with either inferiority or fear of being crushed by same direction traffic. it embodies the very "cyclist-inferiority" technique..... hmmm ,perhaps there is a type 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'
Bek, you have taken years arguing that it is improper for cyclists to ride so that they slow motor traffic. Now you recognize that, in one special instance, I have described a method that, when used in its proper circumstances, does not slow down motor traffic. And that causes you to express disgust at that method!
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.