Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Gene, read what you wrote, quoted here. Read it again. Can you spot the problem?
I know you're talking about "folks". But please explain to me how one gets from a mere ASSOCIATION between VC and "anti-BL" (which again, I have never denied, though you still inexplicably seem to think it's important to point out why one would make that association) to "ASSUME that VC is ALL ABOUT NOT **USING** BL?"
How do you (and other folks) get from ASSOCIATION with "anti-BL" to association with not USING BLs?
Uh, I never associated vc with NOT using bike lanes. In fact, it took me a darn long time to convince you that while I do use bike lanes and do think they have some merit in attracting cyclists to the road and informing motorists that cyclists are on the road, I am in fact a vc cyclist. In fact, you were convinced early on that because I do believe that some bike lanes have merit, I couldn't possibly be a vc cyclist.
Tripped up on your own narrow thinking. Drawing the same conclusions that others draw, because of the association between VC and AntiBL.
Based on the message, and the messengers... IE the Foresterites such as yourself touting both VC and anti bike lane rhetoric, it is just short leap to the conclusion (misconception) that VC means not using BL. And in the case of your previous sig, the two lines together made that association quite easy.
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
I've updated my sig. Do you think that will help?
I doubt it. Why mix the messages? Tout VC. Use a VC sig.
In other discussions, be anti BL. Use an anti BL sig.
The conclusions (misconceptions) that are drawn, are based on you and others trying to deliver the two messages in the same breath.