Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
Good for you. But it was HH who was asking, not you, so I'm not seeing the point. If you've done the research and are not convinced, then good on you. But if there is no hope of holding a reasonable discussion on the subject, then why are you here?
Enough with the insults already. Damn man, are you off your meds? Tell you what. I'll just repeat your words back to you, they have as much relevence.
In other words, all the advocacy of VC'ism is nothing but useless twaddle, hot air, and disturbed electrons. You VC'ists ought to shut up.
Now then, did that convince you to shut up? Why do you think it would convince me to shut up?
And don't you go thinking that I cannot produce an argument for bike lanes. I've produced countless arguments. None have been refuted. Use the search function to look up previous discussions. I don't care to repeat them to a person who is unable to have a reasonable discussion on the subject.
The issue never concerned what you, Brian, have argued. The question concerned reasonable studies upon which you might have based your arguments. You have advanced none.
On the contrary, there are reasonable studies supporting vehicular cycling. The first is that the rules of the road have been worked out to fit the operating characteristics of vehicles and of their human drivers. While I know of no specific early study to determine the fits, it is obvious that the experimentation and discussion that developed the rules of the road has always been based on the goodness of fit. It is well known that acting contrary to the rules of the road causes collisions. Numerous studies on various aspects of that. When it comes specifically to cycling, the Cross study demonstrates that issue quite nicely, and also demonstrates that the specific hazard of the straight-ahead cyclist being run over by the straight-ahead motorist, upon which the bikeway hypothesis is based, is a very small proportion of car-bike collisions. Then there is my own study of the different requirements placed on drivers by the normal rules of the road versus the bikeway operating characteristics. And, of course, studies showing that learning how to operate according to the rules of the road is easy to learn.
The above are the reasons why your foolish assertion that vehicular-cycling advocacy is nothing but useless twaddle, hot air, and disturbed electrons is just what I have written about other bikeway advocacy. There is a difference between an accurate, though picturesque, description and nonsense, and it is not an insult to describe nonsense as what it is.
You ask why I am here? I am here precisely because this group chose to denigrate my position regarding bicycle transportation, specifically using my name as the evil-doer. Think about it.