I hate to admit the truth
 

I could respond to this, but I'm not - if we're going to have an A&S discussion, the thread belongs in A&S.

Not here.

-Kurt

Yeah--C&V really isn't the right place.

I didn't put it up for discussion. Just for the humor. And C&V people are the only ones on this forum with a sense of humor.

Some of us are involved heavily in advocacy and all we see is a meme that parrots the speech of entitled drivers who shout down any and all efforts for the safety of people on bicycles (or foot, or using mobility aids). We see so much of this every day that it is very difficult to find humor in it.

For the record, many studies - not just this one from Portland - have found very little percentage difference in statistical red-light running of drivers vs. people on bicycles:
https://bikeportland.org/2013/06/25/...dy-finds-89025

And perhaps one of the most important studies on this topic found that most riders will take a red light on a clear intersection to get away from the drivers behind them that can't be trusted:
https://daily.jstor.org/are-cyclists...s-lawbreakers/

Overall, one is more likely to get compliance when good, safe cycling infrastructure exists so riders don't feel obligated to take every opportunity to put distance between them and motorists.

So...poor joke. Also not even "true," as research has already debunked it.

Also, no escaping the A&S now. Now that's funny. :P

-Kurt

P.S.: Hmm..."not up for discussion" on a discussion board? Ooh, that's interesting!

Could have fooled me

May I point out that if you ride a C & V race bike with the old, less than comfortable brake hoods, you spend far more time in the drops. And if you wear a proper cycling cap with visor you can barely see the green light. Red lights? Where? I never see them. (I make a point of staying out of neighborhoods where they put them at reasonable elevations.)

Hey, I thought it was funny. But then, I'm weird. :p

This is funny, including the righteous harangue.

Color me robot, but I have failed a couple of those tests and have had to request another round - some of the images are vague at best.

But I must say I thought this was an attempt to be humorous, and I think it had a tone or visual that some have missed.

I thought it was funny.

And perhaps one of the most important studies on this topic found that most riders will take a red light on a clear intersection to get away from the drivers behind them that can't be trusted:
https://daily.jstor.org/are-cyclists...s-lawbreakers/

I do this all the time. An intersection is a great place to get killed on your bike. I only stay if I have to.

But you can always skip to the next test! On a serious note, there are some of us that stop.

Gotta influence this thing into A&S somehow! :roflmao2:

-Kurt

Grant Peterson.

:P

:roflmao:

Wouldn't that shove the thread to P&R?

OH! You mean "John Forester."

-Kurt

If a cyclist runs a red light, and no one is there to witness the infraction, does the cyclist make a sound?

Yes, the sound at 1:28 right here:


The same background music plays too ;)

-Kurt

How about this:

"Grant Petersen and John Forester were riding their bikes sans helmets, both ran stop signs and crashed into each other after after being hit by a cement mixer and a city bus, respectively, on streets lacking bike infrastructure. Discuss."

That's got to be worth 20 pages, easy. :D

In Oregon we've been able to say "who da ho? Idaho" for the past year and run stop signs.

Now that I've recovered from the convulsion of laughter, I'll point out that John was adamant that the middle of the street was bicycle infrastructure.

-Kurt

Me too:

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...44ac893703.jpg

:innocent:

-Kurt

Me too. Especially if you start talking about some hot-button subjects (example: early STIs) that are now well over 35 years old.

Wasn't that decreed not C&V when this forum was opened? https://www.bikeforums.net/early-bri...s-7-8-9-speed/

-Kurt

I saw one to ID all frames including motorcycles and they had an Ebike. I'm ok with getting the dang thing wrong but I should at least get the image with the correct answer.

Dunno if "early brifters" have ever been explicitly stated to be "not C&V". I've never been able to find an explicit definition of what is and isn't "C&V" for the purposes of this forum, and I wasn't a member when the C&V forum was created. But yes, the creation of the "early brifter bikes" near-ghost-town forum does imply that.

However, that decision is questionable IMO. Plus, as time passes the definition of what is considered "C&V" changes in every field of human activity. Cycling is no different.

Case in point, from the automotive world: when the first Ford Mustang was sold in the mid-1960s, it was certainly not "vintage" and most didn't yet consider it a classic (though some did from nearly day one). 30 years later, it was generally considered a prime example of both. Today? If you want to obtain one, well, good luck finding one for sale - and if you do, bring serious $$$.

Minor error in my original post: I had mis-remembered the intro date of STI's - they were introduced in 1990, not the mid-1980s as I'd erroneously recalled (that was STI). They're thus "only" been around 30+ years, not 35+. :)

I probably should have put an "/s" at the end of my post, if you get my brift ;)

-Kurt

That would have helped. Otherwise a responder can misinterpret and brift off-course a bit.

Kinda like I did. :)