Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

What am I?

Old 03-11-07, 08:49 PM
  #51  
Senior Member
 
kalliergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SF Bay
Posts: 708

Bikes: Trek Valencia+, Dutch cargo bike, Karate Monkey, etc.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist
that quote, bruce, still doesn't intend for the politically motivated VC to ignore safe & clear on-road facilities like classed lanes soley to make a political statement.
What do you mean by "ignore?"

Do you mean "refuse to ride in?"
kalliergo is offline  
Old 03-11-07, 08:53 PM
  #52  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 478
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by MrCjolsen
The problem is the vehicular cycling is a riding technique that some people have turned into a poltical ideology.
+1
remsav is offline  
Old 03-11-07, 09:23 PM
  #53  
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 8 Posts
you know what, kalliergo? WHO CARES.

the OP asked what type of rider they were; they are an Adaptive Cyclist. Using their best judgement to ride according to road stripes and using facilties to their benefit.

More power and safe riding to them.

VC is dogmatic evangelicism; AC is unitarian cycling.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 03-11-07, 09:50 PM
  #54  
Senior Member
 
kalliergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SF Bay
Posts: 708

Bikes: Trek Valencia+, Dutch cargo bike, Karate Monkey, etc.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist
you know what, kalliergo? WHO CARES.
Well, since you suggested that (at least some) vehicular cyclists behave that way and/or advocate behaving that way, I thought you might care, at least enough to explain your assertion.

But, evidently not. Perhaps you have another agenda that I haven't been able to discern.
kalliergo is offline  
Old 03-11-07, 10:49 PM
  #55  
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 8 Posts
ahhahaha.. there's a vc 'advocate', or should I say 'acolyte' up north here, who receives criticism by more pragmatic cyclists on group rides when he adamantly refuses to use a bike lane.

VC is dogmatic evangelicism; AC is unitarian cycling.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 03-11-07, 11:22 PM
  #56  
Senior Member
 
kalliergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SF Bay
Posts: 708

Bikes: Trek Valencia+, Dutch cargo bike, Karate Monkey, etc.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist
ahhahaha.. there's a vc 'advocate', or should I say 'acolyte'
Well, you may certainly say what you want, but... I will take you more seriously when you refrain from what I think of as childish name-calling. Of course, you may not care whether I take you seriously or not, but you might want to consider whether others have similar prejudices.

Originally Posted by Bekologist
who receives criticism by more pragmatic cyclists on group rides when he adamantly refuses to use a bike lane.
Thanks for sharing the basis for your earlier assertion. You haven't described the bike lane(s) your acquaintance won't use, but here's how I, and most other (self-described ) vehicular cyclists I know treat bike lanes:

If the BL is appropriately placed (out of the door zone, left of right-turning traffic, etc.), of adequate width to allow me to position myself to prevent dangerously close passing, and has a safe, uncluttered surface I'll use it. In other words, if it looks like a WOL or a rideable shoulder, except for the BL markings, I have no problem riding in it, although I certainly don't think the paint and stencils help cyclists in any way, even in the "best" bike lanes.

On the other hand, if it's full of glass and crud, 18 inches wide adjacent to a NOL and/or parked cars, striped through a RTOL, or displays any of the myriad other idiotic and dangerous characteristics that typify bike lanes created to get cyclists "out of the way" of motorists (the real reason our autocentric society is willing to create most "bicycle facilities"), you won't find me anywhere near it.
kalliergo is offline  
Old 03-11-07, 11:29 PM
  #57  
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 8 Posts
agreed, kalirego. good call on the good bike lane analysis. ride on, buddy! but why shouldn't I call a blind follower of dogmatic ideology an acolyte?

I still characterize VC as dogmatic evangelicism, and AC as unitarian cycling.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 03-11-07, 11:48 PM
  #58  
Senior Member
 
kalliergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SF Bay
Posts: 708

Bikes: Trek Valencia+, Dutch cargo bike, Karate Monkey, etc.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist
but why shouldn't I call a blind follower of dogmatic ideology an acolyte?
It's not so much a question of what you "should" or "shouldn't" do, it's more a matter of enhancing, versus limiting, the impact and effectiveness of your writing. When post after post is littered with derogatory names and ridicule, I have a tendency to become irritated with, and eventually just ignore, the poster(s), thus missing interesting or insightful comments that may be interspersed with the gratuitous attacks.

I'd rather not miss the good stuff you write.

I'm sure I'm not alone in this.
kalliergo is offline  
Old 03-11-07, 11:55 PM
  #59  
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 8 Posts
interesting. i fail to see my posts about vc adherents as being 'derogatory' or ridiculing. I'm just calling it as I see it.

some of us are pretty irritated with the vc idealogues that incessantly post in A&S.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 03-12-07, 06:36 AM
  #60  
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360

Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by kalliergo
Originally Posted by chipcom
But you, by your own admission, do not represent cyclists as a whole, you only represent a subset that conforms to your own definition. You want to talk politics for one specific group, take it to P&R, A&S is for ALL cyclists and cycling in general, IMO.
This seems like a fairly transparent attempt to twist reality in order to banish the very mention of ideas you don't agree with. In other words, bullying behavior, again.

Why not, instead, actually discuss matters of cycling safety and advocacy. You say that's what you want to see here, but you appear to be engaged in something else entirely.
Yet it is you who have not addressed what I wrote, but rather insist on implying some type of bullying behavior as an attempt top sidestep addressing it.

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?

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. 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.

The transparency is all your's, and I believe ILTB hit the nail on the head.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
chipcom is offline  
Old 03-12-07, 07:58 AM
  #61  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 2,209
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
WOW---I in no way intended to stir up such a hornet's nest.

Thank you for the responses----but there is no need for everyone to go insulting each other and what not.
skanking biker is offline  
Old 03-12-07, 08:04 AM
  #62  
Senior Member
 
kalliergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SF Bay
Posts: 708

Bikes: Trek Valencia+, Dutch cargo bike, Karate Monkey, etc.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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.
kalliergo is offline  
Old 03-12-07, 08:46 AM
  #63  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,952

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,517 Times in 1,031 Posts
Originally Posted by kalliergo
It's not so much a question of what you "should" or "shouldn't" do, it's more a matter of enhancing, versus limiting, the impact and effectiveness of your writing. When post after post is littered with derogatory names and ridicule, I have a tendency to become irritated with, and eventually just ignore, the poster(s), thus missing interesting or insightful comments that may be interspersed with the gratuitous attacks.

I'd rather not miss the good stuff you write.

I'm sure I'm not alone in this.
As best as I can tell from your posts, consisting almost exclusively of criticizing other posters' grammar and style, you are irritated with all the posters here, except for HH, who do not share your view on the "good stuff".

How 'bout fessin' up? You are an LCI aren't you? When is your next class being offered? Surprise me! Tell me I'm wrong.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 03-12-07, 09:13 AM
  #64  
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360

Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by kalliergo
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.



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.



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.



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.

So you agree with the definition of a cyclist as 'anyone who rides a bicycle' right? And you advocate for all cyclists to ride in the evironment of their choosing, right?

Politics has no place here because politics is the representation of a group and the only group you represent are the minority of cyclists who think riding on the road is the 'one true way'. This forum is for advocacy...for cycling, not a small subset of it. If you are not an advocate for ALL cyclists in ALL environments - you're are politician, so if you want to pontificate your narrow vc political views, take it to P&R...and if you can't separate the politics from the rest of it...that sounds like a personal problem and you best put me back on ignore.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
chipcom is offline  
Old 03-12-07, 09:15 AM
  #65  
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360

Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
As best as I can tell from your posts, consisting almost exclusively of criticizing other posters' grammar and style, you are irritated with all the posters here, except for HH, who do not share your view on the "good stuff".

How 'bout fessin' up? You are an LCI aren't you? When is your next class being offered? Surprise me! Tell me I'm wrong.
Actually I'm starting to suspect a sockpuppet - very similar styles.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
chipcom is offline  
Old 03-12-07, 09:17 AM
  #66  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,952

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,517 Times in 1,031 Posts
Originally Posted by chipcom
Actually I'm starting to suspect a sockpuppet - very similar styles.
Possibly, but I suspect just another confirmed true believer Forester tool mouthing the words of his guru.

Wait for the proposed implementation plan for this doozy from the acolyte: "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."
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 03-12-07, 09:35 AM
  #67  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 2,209
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
One of the above posts brought up an interesting point that I had heretofore not contemplated very much: education.

I think this runs both ways, that is, education of motorists and of cyclists.

I have mixed feelings on this. Certainly I think part of the problems we face is that so many motorists genuinely don't know what the law is regarding cyclists on the roads---especially when you consider that morning commuters are coming from the suburbs where children ride all over the place (BTW I am not in any way excusing the behavior of JAMS--just thinking about the causes of it) I don't recall ever being taught anything about cyclists' rights 13 years ago in HS driver's ed. Thus, the motoring public definately needs better education on the issue.


The more complicated issue is the matter of cyclist education. I have real mixed feelings on this. First, as a matter of logic, it necessarily follows that if cyclists have all the same rights/reposnsibilities as motorists, and are subject to the same rules of the road, then cyclists should be required to have some education on the issue just like motorists. Although this is certainly logical, I am not comfortable with the idea of the government requiring me to take a "cyclist education" course and/or get a license to ride my bike. Yet, if bike lanes are to be abolished, this result is the logical consquence of treating cyclists as motorists, in ALL respects. It would also further the goal of cycling A & S---namely, the safety part.

On the other hand, one of the goals of cycling advocacy---getting more people on bikes--would certainly be stymied by requiring cyclists to take a formal course and get a license. I know I would not have gotten into cycling if i needed to take a formal course and get a special permit. Further, it is not very realistic to enforce the requirement. Are the cops going to spend all summer cruising the burbs to give citations for 8 yr olds riding on bmx bikes? So perhaps there needs to be a hybrid system---requiring licensing and education to use high traffic streets sans bike lanes. Yet, I am not really comfortable with this either. At the very least, maybe bike manufactures should be required to include a copy of rules of the road with each bike they sell?

I don't know the answers to these questions and am certainly not taking a firm position one way or another.


However, I will say, the merits of peoples' positions here on VC vs. AC aside, one has to ackowledge that there is at least SOME political aspect to cycling advocacy. Whether one wants more bike lanes & paths or wants them abolished---both sides at some point need to exert political pressure (even if it means showing up to a town meeting and asking to speak on the issue) to achieve their desired result. This is not to say that I am a CM supporter or anything---far from it---but I do think that there is going to be SOME political discussion given the nature of the topic in this forum. That is not to say the issues discussed here should be entirely politicized---but its just recognizing a reality.


I realize that was long-winded, off-topic, and probably incoherent, but oh well.
skanking biker is offline  
Old 03-12-07, 09:42 AM
  #68  
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by chipcom
Yet it is you who have not addressed what I wrote, but rather insist on implying some type of bullying behavior as an attempt top sidestep addressing it.

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?
What does "advocate for cycling in general" mean? Please define it before you claim I or anyone else does not do it.

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. 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.
Do you not realize that advocacy is political?
Helmet Head is offline  
Old 03-12-07, 10:03 AM
  #69  
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 8 Posts
Originally Posted by kaliergo the VC

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.
yep, like I said....VC oppose the use of bike facilties. mandatory use IS something worth fighting against. Maybe the VC consider "as far right as practicable EXCEPT" language mandatory use laws.

And bike infrastructure has been PROVEN, in cities AROUND THE GLOBE, to BOTH: 1) increase cyclists and 2) increase cyclist safety. There's no dupe, except in your slant against bike infrastructure, kalirego.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 03-12-07, 10:11 AM
  #70  
Senior Member
 
kalliergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SF Bay
Posts: 708

Bikes: Trek Valencia+, Dutch cargo bike, Karate Monkey, etc.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by chipcom
So you agree with the definition of a cyclist as 'anyone who rides a bicycle' right?
Sure. Do you know anyone who disagrees?

Originally Posted by chipcom
And you advocate for all cyclists to ride in the evironment of their choosing, right?
No, certainly not. There are some environments in which cycling may be a perfectly suitable activity but which don't require my advocacy or in which I have no interest. There are any number of environments I believe to be inappropriate for cycling, and I wouldn't advocate for riding in those. There are some in which I believe cycling should be prohibited and I might support, or even advocate for, such prohibition.
kalliergo is offline  
Old 03-12-07, 10:18 AM
  #71  
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360

Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
What does "advocate for cycling in general" mean? Please define it before you claim I or anyone else does not do it.


Do you not realize that advocacy is political?
Refer to post #44, where definitions of advocacy and politics are provided.

Cycling as in the activities of ALL cyclists - the definition of which we have been over before and your position AGAINST the concept of 'anyone who rides a bicycle is a cyclist' was well documented...or have you changed your tune?

Indeed - please provide your definition of a cyclist and cycling in general if you have a problem with understanding the term, and perhaps we can help you understand.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
chipcom is offline  
Old 03-12-07, 10:25 AM
  #72  
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360

Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by kalliergo
Sure. Do you know anyone who disagrees?
HH, as we will let him once again clarify in his own words soon.

Originally Posted by kalliergo
No, certainly not. There are some environments in which cycling may be a perfectly suitable activity but which don't require my advocacy or in which I have no interest. There are any number of environments I believe to be inappropriate for cycling, and I wouldn't advocate for riding in those. There are some in which I believe cycling should be prohibited and I might support, or even advocate for, such prohibition.
The you don't represent ALL cyclists, many, if not most, of whom prefer many of those facilities that you are so against and 'have no interest' in your POLITICAL efforts to subvert their will. This is NOT the 'vehicular cycling advocacy & safety' forum. So, again, while vc technical aspects are welcome, I think the politcal aspects belong in P&R with the rest of the politics...it would sure make this forum more useful and productive...unless you have some vested interest in vc politics that you feel compelled to promote.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
chipcom is offline  
Old 03-12-07, 10:36 AM
  #73  
Senior Member
 
kalliergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SF Bay
Posts: 708

Bikes: Trek Valencia+, Dutch cargo bike, Karate Monkey, etc.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist
Maybe the VC consider "as far right as practicable EXCEPT" language mandatory use laws
Well, the devil is in the details. Some of the "as far right as practicable" provisions in state vehicle codes are dangerous, discriminatory and unacceptable. Consider this provision of a model UVC, which would eliminate much of the discrimination and unnecessary danger for cyclists:

§ 11-301 Drive on right side of roadway—exceptions

(b) Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal and lawful speed of traffic at the
time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available
for traffic, or far enough to the right to allow overtaking and passing by faster vehicles if such passing is
safe and reasonable, except under any of the situations listed below.


1. When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
2. When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
3. When the operator must necessarily drive in a lane other than the right-hand lane to continue on
his intended route.


The intent of this subsection is to facilitate the overtaking of slowly moving vehicles by faster moving
vehicles, and shall not require the drivers of such slowly moving vehicles to risk their own safety in order
to facilitate overtaking.



Originally Posted by Bekologist
And bike infrastructure has been PROVEN, in cities AROUND THE GLOBE, to BOTH: 1) increase cyclists and 2) increase cyclist safety.
I think it is probably true that more novices and untrained/unskilled cyclists will ride when segregated facilities are provided and when they are led to believe that those facilities make them safer. Whether they are, in fact, safer, and whether such an increase in the number of cyclists is, ipso facto, good for cyclists or society, is another matter.

Can you point to evidence that supports your assertion that "bike infrastructure has been PROVEN" to "increase cyclist safety?"
kalliergo is offline  
Old 03-12-07, 10:41 AM
  #74  
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 8 Posts
the devil is in the details, so to speak, kaliergo. what does all that have to do with adding bike infrastructure for the expediency of bicyclists in a community? you do know what expediency means, correct?

bike infrastructure goes against your political dogmatism, so you refuse to see the myriad advances bike infrastructure gives cyclists in countries across the globe. it's not a 'belief' of 'novices', that's your damnifying VC slant coming thru.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 03-12-07, 10:48 AM
  #75  
Senior Member
 
kalliergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SF Bay
Posts: 708

Bikes: Trek Valencia+, Dutch cargo bike, Karate Monkey, etc.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist
the devil is in the details, so to speak, kaliergo. what does all that have to do with adding bike infrastructure for the expediency of bicyclists in a community? you do know what expediency means, correct?

bike infrastructure goes against your political dogmatism, so you refuse to see the myriad advances bike infrastructure gives cyclists in countries across the globe. it's not a 'belief' of 'novices', that's your damnifying VC slant coming thru.
Why not respond to my request for evidence supporting your assertion that bike infrastructure enhances cyclist safety?

Could it be that your "political dogmatism" leads you to avoid and evade difficult questions?
kalliergo is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.