tomcryar

As you can see from alot of his posts, it does no good to explain why somebody thinks he is wrong about something. He just comes back and says he is right--every time. I will stick to my point of just not responding to him at all.........................

Daily Commute

Good reaction.

If you think his problem is smugness, then the best reaction is to ignore him.
If you think his problem is that his ideas might be persuasive, then the best reaction is to explain why you think his arguments are wrong.
Attacking him personally just makes you look weak.

SingingSabre 

I think we're arguing for the same point here.

I'm basically saying that I feel that capitalizing on someone's death to further a specific, and/or controversial agenda which has no basis in actual fact, is wrong.

Memorial rides, I feel, are wonderful things. They rally up people who are mourning, some who aren't, some who have had similar situations, etc. and give them all comfort and a degree of closure. The fact that many memorial rides have the potential to spark change is simply a happy side effect, imho.

Actually, my experience with him is that he chides and scolds the cyclist for not riding in the lane and makes excuses for the driver of the vehicle which killed the cyclist. This doesn't apply to only the thread about the young boy who was killed, but most threads I've seen him post in about cyclist deaths.

I feel that new cyclists can be overwhelmed by the amount of information on this forum. I know I was. Giving each new member to the forum, especially the younger ones (there are members who are 13), information which has no basis on fact and is potentially dangerous (note the cyclists here who have been hit only while using HH's DLP theory) without any counterpoint seems irresponsible.

I'm not saying each report about a cyclist's death is correct, I'm just saying that it needs to not be used as a Church of VC pulpit.

sbhikes

He took my topic off topic, the one about the 12 year old boy. I pretty much knew that he would because that's what he does. It was mostly a lot of other people who jumped on him for doing so right off the bat. I just tried to post information I received from other members of the community and tried to remind people that we were talking about a 12 year old little kid.

I don't really understand why my topic got closed. Does anybody know? It really didn't turn out any worse than say, this topic.

joejack951

There's been a cyclist hit who road in the lane to grab a driver's attention then moved over with plenty of time before the driver ever got near the cyclist? That's news to me.

If you are talking about a cyclist being hit while taking a lane on a road with insufficient width for sharing then you are completely missing the point of the DLP thoery.

tomcryar

He had an occasion awhile back where people were calling him on his posts in another thread and he pm'ed Joe, and Joe stepped in and said cool it, basically. I think that may be what happened in sbhikes thread. I don't know that to be true, but it sounds like it to me.

rando

oh, come on, he cried to Joe? and then Joe shut the thread down? or what?

tomcryar

I said I didn't know that to be true, but he's done it in at least one other thread. This time, not Joe, but Expatriate.

sbhikes

I ride with a guy who said he was hit while in the center of the lane. He told me about it yesterday. He said he took the lane because he didn't trust these drivers to see him over in the bike lane. He was crossing the freeway on Westlake Blvd in LA. Someone exited off the freeway to make a right turn, but he never looked to his right as he was coming off the ramp. He only looked to his left to see if cars were coming. He ran smack into my friend, pushing him for 25 feet or so. He's ok now and his road-rash healed up fine.

DrPete 

Taking the lane routinely makes no sense. I mentioned it in another thread, but basically the lane is where ALL of the rear-end collisions take place between vehicles. Lucky for cyclists it's usually car vs. car, but far more common than the isolated veer-into-the-bike-lane collisions. You never hear about how often cars get rear ended because it happens so damned much. If cyclists were to join the party, do you honestly think that your bike is going to work any better than that car at getting a motorist's attention, and how do you think your bike and body will fare compared to the car?

vrkelley

Exactly my point. Folks read in the safety forum some sort fancy concept/term ...believe it...then get creamed. Besides someone being hurt or killed, that lowers the credibility of the whole forum.

tomcryar

Yes. Some come here for answers to their questions and if they're told wrong, or they misunderstand, because of some silly little argument, they could be hurt out there.

tomcryar

Agreed.

Daily Commute

He didn't take it off topic. Discussing what could have prevented an accident is very much on topic for an accident thread. Would you have said the same thing if someone else had said, "this shows the need for a striped lane" or "this shows the need for cyclists to ride as close to the curb as possible"?

What "lowers the credibility of the whole forum" is the willingness of the HHDS (Helmet Head Derangement Syndrome) sufferers to attack him personally instead of attacking his ideas. A few recent posts have explained why some think that using the full lane is not safe. That would be much more persuasive than the standard HHDS personal attacks. Instead, the mythical ignorant newbies see only HH explaining his position while his critics whine about not liking HH. Which approach is more persuasive?

KrisPistofferson

I don't know, but I do know that making up and assigning names to a psychological condition no one's ever heard of, (I'm guessing without a doctorate or printed in a peer-reviewed publication of any kind,) is probably not where someone who is an expert on the credibility of this forum should want to start.

I'm glad Serge has disciples, though. Whoda' thunk?

joejack951

If you would read what's being said about taking the lane on a road where there is room to move over, you'd realize that no one's saying to get out in the lane and sit there. The point is to be where people are looking but yield to faster traffic when it's approaching. I don't see how that will cause rear ending accidents. Riding off to the right where you are less conspicuous to approaching traffic and generally on an inferior road surface and when there is no same direction traffic makes no sense to me.

As to which accidents are more common, the most common bicycle/auto accidents seem to be left and right hooks, both of which can be avoided by being in the lane at intersections.

vrkelley

Great theory. The topic was about cylist deaths. Reposting my quote that makes no mention of 'mythical newbies'. People dying whie following bad theory probably has a greater impact on credibility.

Hambone

In response to the initial question...

I think posters should keep in the back of their mind that a loved one of the deceased rider may read what they have posted. Don't post anything you wouldn't want the victim's wife/husband/mother/father/son/daughter to read.

yes

^ good point. People need to show tact. There is a difference between blaming the cyclist and stating that his/her death can teach us something about how to ride.
If it were me that had been killed, I'd be happy that people were discussing it and trying to learn from it. I'd be annoyed if a few people assessing blame without enough facts and then bickering with others about it.

sgtsmile

The problem with anyone's blanket theory is that you can always "what if" your way into a situation where it wont work and then jump out and say "HAH! I told you you were wrong! Points for me!"

Anyone who does that is a fool.

Taking the lane makes sense in certain circumstances, riding the edge does too, so does the sidewalk, etc. The absolutists on both sides, the inflexible, those are the ones who need thier heads examined. Most people just take things as they come, and run with it.

For example: HH's arguments in favour of lane use have made me more proactive in areas where it makes sense to take the lane (we have some narrow bits here). However, I also use bike lanes and am in favour of them being included in new and reconstructed roads. Both concepts work, and any fight between them is largely in the heads of the extremists on both sides. Most cyclists I have seen here seem to do just fine tootling about using paths, bike lanes, the edge of the road, and the middle of the lane depending on a) where they are going, b) how fit they are (speed sometimes is needed for lane holding), c) their personal comfort level, etc.

Regarding death posts and their uses: please DO discuss what could have prevented the death from both the car driver (if any) and the cyclist's perspective. If anyone can learn something from some other person's tragedy, then let them! All I ask is that we do not disrespect what happened and try not to push any agenda (either pro vc, anti vc, or anti any particular forum poster.)

tomcryar

Regarding death posts and their uses: please DO discuss what could have prevented the death from both the car driver (if any) and the cyclist's perspective. If anyone can learn something from some other person's tragedy, then let them! All I ask is that we do not disrespect what happened and try not to push any agenda (either pro vc, anti vc, or anti any particular forum poster.) -- sgtsmile


I think people have been sufficiently chastised in this area, so maybe it won't happen again??

SingingSabre 

+1 I started taking the lane more (though not from HH's words) after reading the commuting forum. I much prefer bike lanes over traffic lanes, so I tend to stick to routes with good bike lanes. If one is there, use it!

+1 to your death post discussion ideas, too. That's why I voted "other," so I could explain how I felt that discussion is okay, but not at the cost of disrespecting the subject.

Daily Commute

Who else would follow advice that you think is so obviously flawed? Perhaps it's not as obviously flawed as you think.

Yes, because it was sooooo clear that I was trying to pass off "Helmet Head Derangement Syndrome" as being in the DSM-IV.

saraflux

I think that speculation is fine. as is argument- respectful, non-hostile argument- i guess i mean debate. anyway, i am new-ish to this forum and i find that the 16-page sandbox fights that get going on here really turn me off. i am very interested in as many opinions as i can possibly get, but i get irritated trying to figure out who is on whose side in some of these threads. why does it have to get so personal and condescending?
that's my 2 cents.

Helmet Head

I ride regularly. In fact, I rode to work today. Where did you get the idea that I did not ride regularly?