Yeah but you're not willing to consider counter arguments ... Therefore it is not a discussion... Just Serge "preaching."

Gene, in addition to the counter points to my argument that you made in #659, you also made three statements of your opinion about my general opinions about bike lanes which did not constitute a counter argument to the specific argument I presented.

As to the actual counter points you presented, I considered them and addressed them in detail in #662.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.p...&postcount=662

It is you who are not considering and responding to what I'm saying. For example, in #662, in response to a point of yours I considered and could not understand the relevance of, I asked for clarification, which you never provided:


I considered your entire counter argument and responded to it to the best of my ability. You responded with a post full of more non-sequitors that did not address my original argument, nor my response to your counter-argument. And then you contend that there is no discussion because of my preaching? For real examples of "preaching", look at some of your own posts.

The only reason this is not a discussion is because you're not giving my argument the careful consideration you would have to give it to see whether it's convincing or has flaws. The full argument is presented in post #674 and is awaiting your analysis. I put a lot of time and effort into it, and would appreciate your giving it some attention. Thanks.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.p...&postcount=674

Serge, in order to comment on just some of your items I've pruned the others from this reply.

Comments on the premises listed above; as you may know,

1. the assumption here is based on a Rule of Road < the US model rule is UVC 11-309(a), Driving on roadways laned for traffic>
2. this assumption isn't based on a Rule of Road <the US model rule is UVC 11-303(a), Overtaking a vehicle on the left, which "works" the same regardless of markings, signage, or the lack thereof>
3. same comment as for premise #2
4. same comment as for premise #1

Comments on the reasoning listed above; as you may know,

1. the assumed behavior would be contrary to a Rule of Road < the US model rule is UVC 11-309(a), Driving on roadways laned for traffic>.

Here's a version of that conclusion which, IMHO, is more "in line" :) with the US model Rules:

1. Because motorists are likely to pass a cyclist in a BL more closely than if there was no BL stripe, and
2. because the cyclist is more likely to fall due to debris which are swept into (but not beyond) the BL by vehicle types banned from the BL,

the BL situation is more dangerous than the WOL situation.

Bwileyr,

I finally see the light. Now I know why it's best to keep it simple.

I didn't understand a word of what you just said. Maybe I should ask Serge, or John E.

:)

(I did understand this, tho: "Because motorists are likely to pass a cyclist in a BL to the left thereof at less of a distance than if there was no BL stripe, and because the cyclist is more likely to fall due to debris which are swept into, but not beyond, the BL by the vehicle types which are forbidden to travel where the BL is, the BL situation is more dangerous than the WOL situation.")

I sure as hell don't want to play chess with you guys.

Any argument I post you will counter with the typical: "well I have not seen it, it does not happen to me, therefore it does not happen" statements.

That is the point I made in what you called ad hominem attacks and non sequitors.

I then continued and offered my counter points in that same post 659, and you dismissed them, except my point 1, in your post 662.

Any other counterpoints I offer, you will simply dismiss, so there is no point in going on.

Bruce - thank you.
Gene - I'm disappointed. I did not dismiss your 659 counterpoints in my 662 post. 662 speaks for itself.