Originally Posted by chipcom
FACT: You, HH and other Foresterites do NOT advocate for cycling in general and have a narrow definition of who you are advocating for...and it isn't all cyclists. Care to dispute that...or am I just a bully for asking?
You just can't post without name-calling, can you Chip?
That's why I accuse you of bullying, not because you ask questions you imagine I won't like.
Your assertion doesn't even come close to being a "FACT." I am an advocate of safe and convenient cycling
on all public roads and of laws that support and promote said safety and convenience. I want that for all cyclists.
I do
not support the notion that cyclists ought to be able to cycle safely and conveniently without actually learning to do so and applying acquired skills and knowledge to the task. They cannot, and it is fanciful to believe they can. I live in a place with lots of cyclists, most of them incompetent, and I see the evidence for my position every day.
I do
not support, indeed, I actively oppose, the creation and mandated use of segregated facilities which are purported to be for the benefit of cyclists but which are in fact intended to get cyclists out of the way of motorists. I am dismayed that so many cyclists have been duped into believing that these "facilities" enhance their safety and I often try to explain what I believe to be the truth of the matter.
Originally Posted by chipcom
FACT: We have a forum for Politics and Relgion. You and HH have admitted that vehicular cycling, in your terms, has political and technical aspects. Do you have a problem keeping your politics in the proper forum and discussing the technical aspects here? Or are they so closely interwined that you can't
separate the two.
Of course cycling safety and advocacy are so intertwined with politics that they cannot be separated! How could it be otherwise?
To answer your disingenuous question, I would have a serious problem with bikeforums if you were somehow able to convince the operators to banish such an essential aspect of advocacy and safety to the outer darkness of the P&R forum. I'd leave the forums and make a point of not making purchases from the advertisers who support the site.
Originally Posted by chipcom
If that's the case, please let us know so we can make a contribution to the wiki definition so the rest of the world can be aware of that fact.
Honestly, Chip, if you're going to rely so much upon mean-spirited sarcasm to attempt to make your points, you really should get better at it.
Originally Posted by chipcom
The transparency is all your's, and I believe ILTB hit the nail on the head.
ILTB has long been relegated to my "ignore" list, because his posts are full of unrelenting nastiness and he never has anything to say that I find worth reading. FWIW, you have been there, too, but I removed you because you sometimes post interesting comments.