Originally Posted by Helmet Head
One way to shed some light on this question is to consider a location where the claim has been made that harrassment is very high (daily) independent of cyclist behavior, and then inquire other cyclists who ride in that area if that is consistent with their experience.
Nonsense. You are simply using a sophist's trick in an attempt to discredit someone's opinion and their experience. Why can't you accept opinion as opinion and experience as experience? If you have an opposing opinion, express it. If you have had a different experience, I'm sure everyone is dying to read what your experience has been.
Opinion and experience are neither wrong nor right.
This stunt you pull of trying to prove someone else's opinion wrong is absurd, argumentative and insulting.
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
The underlying issue is how much the factors of location and cyclist behavior play a role in determining how much a given cyclist is harassed.
Did someone claim that harassment is independent of cycling behavior or location? My experience (which I invite you to disprove is my experience, and ask a million pointless questions about) is that both location and cyclist behavior are important factors, as are the clothes the cyclist wears, how the cyclist combs their hair, lateral lane position, speed (and other drugs) and the phase of the moon.
There are some areas of St. Louis County where, if I rode the right bike, wore the right clothes and combed my hair right, I could probably ride virtually forever without much chance of being harassed. There are other areas where, despite not riding there a whole lot, I have been harassed more than a couple of times. Is that a coincidence, or is location important factor?