Actually, you did quote me. When you hit "reply with quote" what I have written appears as a "quote" in your post. I have no problem with that. My issue is that you then, in your response, put something else in quotes that has no relation to what I wrote and is a complete mischaracterization of any statement I made. You attribute the statement you put in quotes to no one in particular so it is easily assumed it is something I said.

Instead your added quote is something you have conjured in an imaginary "debate" with someone other than me. You call this an "established debate tactic". I might call it an "established da bait tactic". In other words it's a way of baiting someone into a ridiculous dialogue far from the actual topic. Pretty much what is happening now, within 3 posts of your original response.

You say, "then don't respond". Well, if you take one of my posts and hit "reply with quote" I am very likely to continue to respond so I kindly ask that should you do so restrain yourself from creating an imaginary quote based on your interpretation of what you think I said and either ask for clarification or actually make your points of disagreement. Or don't hit "reply with quote" and feel free to have your imaginary debate with your phantom opponent.

Since you did more or less move to responding to what I did write in your most recent post I will respond:

There is a tendency on the part of the general public to exaggerate the risks of cycling. We agree on that point. I think it's a large part of why more people don't cycle in this country. But you seem to feel my comments regarding proximity to motor vehicles and risk exposure feeds that misconception. This you attribute to my "general tone". Well, tone is tough to read in an on line forum. But let me say that when I post in here my assumption is that most of the posters in bike forums ride bikes regularly and are not the general public and so my comments are meant for a dialogue between fellow riders. In which case, I assume, perhaps mistakenly in your case, that most of us accept whatever risks we individually feel we may face in riding our bikes. I also assume, perhaps wrongly again in your case, that our discourse in BF and in A&S in particular, is about making it even safer than it already is-either through riding technique, legislation, education, law enforcement etc...

With all that said let me speak to you bike rider to bike rider for a moment. You pointed out that you wouldn't want to be riding along with cars traveling at freeway speeds on a daily basis as I am currently finding myself doing here in the San Diego area. Well, I don't find it too pleasant and I look forward to getting out on some quiet New England country roads before the summer is finished. Pretty much every road I commute on right now is a minimum of three lanes in each direction with added fourth and fifth lanes at intersections. The volume of traffic is extremely high and the speed is often approaching 50 or above. Fortunately, most of the ones I ride on are bike laned but crossing to make a left turn requires skill and fair bit of courage. It also requires a level of trust that the approaching drivers see you, are not texting or otherwise distracted or drunk.

I also ride recreationally. And my road rides in the area tend to involve riding long loops on similar roads or going north up the 101 with an endless stream of cars to my left, frequent intersections with long traffic lights or stop signs and beach going drivers pulling in and out of parking spaces along the side of the road.

Last night I had my most pleasant and what I would deem safest ride. On the way home from work (I worked until 10 pm) I found a roughly 1 mile loop on the USCD campus where I could time trial for an hour with absolutely not one car and with not one stop in a full hour of ridng. The road was smooth and well lit by both street lamps and my bike light and it was the best ride I've had since I got to San Diego---- why? NO CARS!!!!

So, if as a fellow bike rider you don't know what I mean when I say we are at higher risk when we are more exposed to automobiles I don't know what else I can say or do to convince you but it's just how I feel. And since statistically most cyclist fatalities and serious injuries involve collisions with automobiles I'd say theres plenty of evidence I'm correct.

The problem is how do we solve this dilemma when a good portion of the country lives in areas like Southern California or othr areas where current infrastructure means constant cyclists' exposure to motor vehicular traffic on a regular basis.