Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff

You obviously missed what I was saying. Post a case study if you want. Just strip the personal details of who, when, and location. There is no point in having these details be part of your case study, except, perhaps, to inflame emotions of the cycling community and generate controversy. I won't answer to your case study, and nobody else should either, until you post the specific details sans any personal information which could lead to the slain cyclist being identified.

I have no problem with case studies - they can be very helpful as a teaching tool. I have a very real problem with using an intensely emotional (for some in the cycling community, obviously not yourself) event as "fodder" for a "debate."

Again, if you want this to be discussed by anyone else than HH; if you want this to teach anything to anybody; then repost your case study with details of the accident as it pertains to your teaching or discussion and sans any personal details of who was involved, when it happened, and where it happened. Instead of being lazy and saying "such and such road in greensville, OH," say: "on a 4 lane arterial road with shoulders but no bike lane around a gentle right hand bend...". This is how you describe a case study in neutral terms, so it can be studied free from emotional response.

Otherwise, I can only assume that your objective is to only inflame emotions and provoke controversy (which people of your ilk tend to confuse with "debate"), and is not to teach or analyze or study.

The moderators of this forum should kill any thread which seeks to capitalize on the deaths of real, identifiable, cyclists to "teach" or "study" or "debate" a subject. This forums has already gotten the reputation of being a not so very friendly place where all we do is shout, insult, and degrade each other. We can change that by making up some rules which case studies are posted. These rules should dictate that any post which seeks to capitalize on the death or serious injury of a real, identifiable, cyclist as a teaching or debating tool be immediately locked. Case studies should be allowed, and they can even be about current events, but they cannot identify the cyclist involved by either direct information, location, or time. The OP needs to be responsible for providing the details of the case study and not taking shortcuts such as simply naming an article in the paper or providing the cross street. This will ensure the discussion of the case study stays on track and the victim of the accident cannot be identified.

HH, galen, DC, and others who seem to prefer the emotionally charged way of teaching case studies; I'd suggest you work with me on this one. Every thread you fellows start with case studies are poorly thought out, poorly researched, and nearly always start with a clip from a news article. Every thread of this ilk veers off within the first page by people who are offended by your "discussion method." The common result is that there are 5 or 6 pages of insults, no discussion except by a few hard headed individuals such as HH or galen, and as a result, not discussion of the ideas the OP was trying to present. It doesn't help when the OP uses inflamatory language such as "another case of a bike lane killing another cyclist" (paraphrased, of course). As a result of there not being any discussion, there is no exchange of ideas, and no teaching. A newbe who happens upon one of these threads simply doesn't learn anything except that there is some sort of "controversy," and/or gets disgusted by the whole thing.

So, galen: Please, if your aim is to teach or discuss, repost this as a cleaned up case study which is self contained so we can have a proper discussion of traffic cycling technique and philosophy. I don't mind these (I don't think anyone minds these), and I've participated in several in the past.