Don't Ride in the Middle to Left Side of the Lane
#651
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Oh, so you know about them? About time you start applying that knowledge to your approach to traffic. Like how one should place oneself near the crest of a hill.
But right, I forgot: American hills are different from European hills.
As for the severity of the collisions you mention, go back and check the material supplied by Robert Hurst. Or look for a recent paper from Holland, also showing that those turning/crossing collisions are not the ones that kill most cyclists. But we've been through that one before. Somehow you manage to think that there are fates one can meet on the roads that are worse than death.
As for my poor command of English, you're right. I'm probably not allways as clear as I'd like to be. But somehow, most people seem to understand what I say, after all. Your problem with it seems to be a lack of mental flexibility which also shows in your rigid, idealist approach to traffic and traffic laws (as pointed out by Robert Hurst).
But right, I forgot: American hills are different from European hills.
As for the severity of the collisions you mention, go back and check the material supplied by Robert Hurst. Or look for a recent paper from Holland, also showing that those turning/crossing collisions are not the ones that kill most cyclists. But we've been through that one before. Somehow you manage to think that there are fates one can meet on the roads that are worse than death.
As for my poor command of English, you're right. I'm probably not allways as clear as I'd like to be. But somehow, most people seem to understand what I say, after all. Your problem with it seems to be a lack of mental flexibility which also shows in your rigid, idealist approach to traffic and traffic laws (as pointed out by Robert Hurst).
If you talk to doctors, social service workers, insurers, attorneys, and close relatives, you will find plenty of evidence that there are worse outcomes from a traffic accident than is death.
Hagen's main trouble is that he makes general statements that are conspicuously false, and then defends them by pointing out some particular situation in which the questioned statement happens to be true. Conspicuous among these are his statements about traffic accidents when he actually pays attention only to fatal ones. He uses these general statements in such a way that his readers, at least those of us who try to understand exactly what Hagen means, do not know whether he is discussing national differences or site-specific differences.
Hagen may choose to agree with Hurst's side of the Hurst/Forester difference, but I point out that Hurst holds a rather far outlying opinion in the traffic engineering world. Hurst asserts that traffic operates in some unknown manner and that cyclists should strive to take advantage of every opening that enables them to move faster, regardless of law. The mainstream view of traffic operation, to which I adhere, holds that traffic generally operates according to the accepted principles and laws, although, of course, mistakes do occur. Cyclists fare best when they obey those principles and laws and when, in turn, society treats them as both doing so and being entitled to do so. Hurst asserts, so far as I know, that I tell cyclists to simply obey the rules of the road and nothing else. That is conspicuously false, because I tell cyclists that when they know how traffic should operate, as it usually does, they are best prepared to detect an abnormality and to avoid the likely consequences of that abnormal operation, for which I give some advice.
#652
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 1,832
Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Judging from Hurst's posts here, I think it's doubtfull that he would recognize his points of view in your description. Same goes for mine quite often, by the way
#653
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
If you, Hagen, care to disagree with my view of Hurst's opinions, then read the review and make your arguments.
Last edited by John Forester; 07-07-12 at 06:30 PM. Reason: spelling
#654
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 1,832
Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
(Phew. Took way too much time to find it. Debating with this man is rather exasperating)
Last edited by hagen2456; 07-07-12 at 07:31 PM.
#655
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 1,832
Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
In fact, the thread I link to shows how mr. Forester can sabotage any discussion with his constant evasions, misreading-as-if-on-porpose etc. Take, for example, the conversation from post #106 and on. It's quite amazing the lengths he'll go to, to find a weakness in his opponents reasoning, including hammering on the use of the word "principle", which I had allready corrected myself, and the use of which should be clear from the context. This man really has a diamond-like mental flexibility and shows a complete disregard for the substance of any objection to his positions. Another example could be from post #55 in that thread, where I had to tell him that "Your demanding that it should be bike-collission specific is a bit weird, as I was not talking specifically of that issue. i was merely mentioning the fact that the "mysteries" of traffic are now being studied in a new light.". He continuously seems to read things one never wrote. If one is not alert to that fact, one is dragged into endless meanderings, in the end never knowing how one ended up in a strange and forbidding place. I read somewhere that the nazi doctors used that method when experimenting with how to make people psychotic. I can believe that.
(And no, that is not drawing the nazi card, to your information. Could probably have happened in the USSR, too)
Oh, and I can see that I'm not the first to point out his weird way of debating and his idealist view of traffic: https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...Art-of-Cycling. So, dear members of BF, should one simply ignore him, or should one go on offering some sensible counter weight? Is it futile? Does it serve any purpose?
(And no, that is not drawing the nazi card, to your information. Could probably have happened in the USSR, too)
Oh, and I can see that I'm not the first to point out his weird way of debating and his idealist view of traffic: https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...Art-of-Cycling. So, dear members of BF, should one simply ignore him, or should one go on offering some sensible counter weight? Is it futile? Does it serve any purpose?
Last edited by hagen2456; 07-07-12 at 08:53 PM.
#656
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Tampa/St. Pete, Florida
Posts: 9,352
Bikes: Specialized Hardrock Mountain (Stolen); Giant Seek 2 (Stolen); Diamondback Ascent mid 1980 - 1997
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
First, the woman who was killed on that hill, was killed by an oncoming car that overtook another car coming up from the opposite side of the hill. Had she been FRAP, she would have lived. (I know that piece of road)
I don’t wish to appear rude, but your objections have already been discussed extensively. In short, examples like those I cite show that though “taking the lane” will probably mostly be beneficial when you interact with sane and alert drivers, it won’t help you when it comes to the reckless and stupid drivers - and those are the ones that in any case constitute the major danger on the roads. I think it’s pretty logical that this should give any VC’er second thoughts about taking the lane in blind curves or near the crest of a hill. The lane-taking simply doesn’t take into account the greatest dangers. It’s like crossing on green without for one moment pausing to watch out for some ***hat who might blow a red right into you.
I know that VC’ers like to think that bicycles should be regarded as vehicles on a par with cars, with the same privileges and responsibilities. But I really think that the Dutch way of separating traffic according to weight, speed and direction: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/20...inable-safety/ is a much better way of doing things. I know that such an approach is not exactly round the corner in the USA (nor in most of the world), but actually seing VC as an ideal is incomprehensible to me, as that will definitely never lead to any change.
I don’t wish to appear rude, but your objections have already been discussed extensively. In short, examples like those I cite show that though “taking the lane” will probably mostly be beneficial when you interact with sane and alert drivers, it won’t help you when it comes to the reckless and stupid drivers - and those are the ones that in any case constitute the major danger on the roads. I think it’s pretty logical that this should give any VC’er second thoughts about taking the lane in blind curves or near the crest of a hill. The lane-taking simply doesn’t take into account the greatest dangers. It’s like crossing on green without for one moment pausing to watch out for some ***hat who might blow a red right into you.
I know that VC’ers like to think that bicycles should be regarded as vehicles on a par with cars, with the same privileges and responsibilities. But I really think that the Dutch way of separating traffic according to weight, speed and direction: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/20...inable-safety/ is a much better way of doing things. I know that such an approach is not exactly round the corner in the USA (nor in most of the world), but actually seing VC as an ideal is incomprehensible to me, as that will definitely never lead to any change.
And typically speaking in cases like this the cyclist has both more time and more space to react in. That in this and a small percentage of cases that it doesn’t work out isn’t the fault VC riding nor taking the lane. This poor woman’s death is squally on the shoulders of the motorist and has nothing to do taking the lane or riding VC style.
Why shouldn’t the general laws/rules of the road apply equally to everyone regardless of the type of vehicle that they are operating? A bicycle in most states in the USA ARE legally regarded as a vehicle with all the same rights and responsibilities as any other vehicle on the road. As I’ve said the Amish and farmers operating on the public road are given more respect then cyclists riding bicycles on the public roads are given.
So why is it that a horse drawn buggy and a tractor or combine is given more respect than a bicycle? Both are slow moving vehicles and in the case of a horse and buggy very light in weight.
As you’ve been told sadly, the bicycle specific infrastructure that you enjoy would not work in the USA. Because:
a) The American motorist will not sit well with having any of their “road” given up/infringed upon.
a. They want to be able to go fast without having to worry about accommodating slower moving traffic.
b. They view the road as being their and only their domain.
b) The American motorist want to give up “any” of their roads to anyone else.
IF VC is so “wrong” then how do you explain why so many people here in the states practicing it safely? How do you explain all of those who practice it reporting that when they ride VC vs. FRAP that they get more not less respect on the road?
There is an intersection on my normal route that if I go through it one way I get what is known as a “dead read” because it gives priority the avenue that crosses the street. Whereas if I go through the intersection on the avenue I can catch the light green, about half the time I have to deal with some semi-heavy traffic. So far everyone that I’ve had coming up behind me when I’ve signaled that I am preparing to move to the left has been met with cooperation, i.e. the motorists will slow down and give me time and space to move into the left hand turn lane.
Thus, I would say proving that riding VC style does in fact work.
#657
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 1,832
Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
So because a motorist acted in an a presumably illegal and definitely unsafe manner you’re willing to blame where and how she was riding. Wouldn’t it be better to blame the driver for engaging in such a dangerous manner when THEY clearly didn’t have a clear line of sight? My take on this case is that had the motorist in question been more patient and had waited for a safe spot to pass then they never would have hit the woman in question.
...
As you’ve been told sadly, the bicycle specific infrastructure that you enjoy would not work in the USA. Because:
a) The American motorist will not sit well with having any of their “road” given up/infringed upon.
a. They want to be able to go fast without having to worry about accommodating slower moving traffic.
b. They view the road as being their and only their domain.
b) The American motorist want to give up “any” of their roads to anyone else.
IF VC is so “wrong” then how do you explain why so many people here in the states practicing it safely? How do you explain all of those who practice it reporting that when they ride VC vs. FRAP that they get more not less respect on the road?
There is an intersection on my normal route that if I go through it one way I get what is known as a “dead read” because it gives priority the avenue that crosses the street. Whereas if I go through the intersection on the avenue I can catch the light green, about half the time I have to deal with some semi-heavy traffic. So far everyone that I’ve had coming up behind me when I’ve signaled that I am preparing to move to the left has been met with cooperation, i.e. the motorists will slow down and give me time and space to move into the left hand turn lane.
Thus, I would say proving that riding VC style does in fact work.
...
As you’ve been told sadly, the bicycle specific infrastructure that you enjoy would not work in the USA. Because:
a) The American motorist will not sit well with having any of their “road” given up/infringed upon.
a. They want to be able to go fast without having to worry about accommodating slower moving traffic.
b. They view the road as being their and only their domain.
b) The American motorist want to give up “any” of their roads to anyone else.
IF VC is so “wrong” then how do you explain why so many people here in the states practicing it safely? How do you explain all of those who practice it reporting that when they ride VC vs. FRAP that they get more not less respect on the road?
There is an intersection on my normal route that if I go through it one way I get what is known as a “dead read” because it gives priority the avenue that crosses the street. Whereas if I go through the intersection on the avenue I can catch the light green, about half the time I have to deal with some semi-heavy traffic. So far everyone that I’ve had coming up behind me when I’ve signaled that I am preparing to move to the left has been met with cooperation, i.e. the motorists will slow down and give me time and space to move into the left hand turn lane.
Thus, I would say proving that riding VC style does in fact work.
And that brings us to your reasons for feeling that VC "works". I'm sure it does. Most of the time. After all, most drivers are reasonable people who will, albeit grudgingly, cooperate with and accept cyclists regardless of their riding style. But don't forget, just as History is written by the "winners", so will reports on the success of VC be told by those who survive it (and that is the vast majority). However, with VC incorporating riding like in the examples I've given here and elsewhere, one is allowed to be rather skeptical of claims as to its being THE safe manner of riding. In the "tour de **** you" thread, it's quite effectively described how it's based on presumptions about traffic which are not realist but utopian. Mr. Forester has a very inflexible and immature way of understanding traffic (and apparently language, too), which doesn't in my eyes inspire confidence.
The reasons you give for Dutch style infrastructure not working in the USA are not really that, but reasons why it will be difficult to implement. But that's no different in principle, but only in degree, from the situation in most of the world, including Denmark and exluding probably only Holland. You should see the comments to Danish websites discussing the exlusion of cars from more streets, or lowered speed limits etc. The same bloodthirstyness, car centricity and vengefulness that you get in English speaking countries.
#658
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,974
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,536 Times
in
1,045 Posts
??? So many people practicing vehicular cycling??? By what standard is anyone labeled a "VC"? By what standard do you arrive at "so many"? Who has done the count/measurement using any standard? You, or some other John Forester VC spinning acolyte?
#659
Bicikli Huszár
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 2,116
Bikes: '95 Novara Randonee
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I felt it worthy of note to call this out as plain ad hominem. Come now, John, you're better than that. hagen has been more clear than many-a-poster here and you know this.
In the case of a hill, I don't think so. The whole problem of the hill is that they are too close before you can see them, meaning they are close by the time they are visible, meaning you shouldn't have much trouble seeing them by the time they are visible. I would think in this situation you'd want to be further right to allow the motorist to either swerve/move left in time with enough space to avoid hitting you, or give you more room to bail to the right if you need to. At the very least you're more likely to have a glancing hit.
Originally Posted by Digital Cowboy
No, one cannot “look through” a hill, but I would think that even you will admit that a cyclist who is “taking the lane” as opposed to riding FRAP has a better chance of being seen sooner then the rider who is riding FRAP. Thus giving motorists approaching from behind a better chance of seeing and reacting to them.
#660
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
No, I stand by my criticism of Hagen's use of English. Certainly, a grammarian would find few errors in his writing, which runs smoothly. However, Hagen fails to use the normal qualifiers that one would expect to see in normal English discussions, so that the reader cannot tell whether Hagen is discussing a general situation or a specific situation. One could easily attribute this failure to some other cause, but I have chosen to offer what appears to be the easiest suggestion.
#661
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
As for the killed cyclist, I only place a very small part of the responsibility on herself, as we have pretty universal FRAP here. The overwhelming responibility is, of course, with the driver. But that's not the issue, really. What this - and the other example of the blind curve - tells us is, that IF you ride VC in such a place (and now mr. Forester tells me that it isn't VC, though several people here told me it is, and the only right thing to do), you put your fate in the hands of drivers to a completely unnecessary extent.
snip
snip
#662
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
snip
The reasons you give for Dutch style infrastructure not working in the USA are not really that, but reasons why it will be difficult to implement. But that's no different in principle, but only in degree, from the situation in most of the world, including Denmark and exluding probably only Holland. You should see the comments to Danish websites discussing the exlusion of cars from more streets, or lowered speed limits etc. The same bloodthirstyness, car centricity and vengefulness that you get in English speaking countries.
The reasons you give for Dutch style infrastructure not working in the USA are not really that, but reasons why it will be difficult to implement. But that's no different in principle, but only in degree, from the situation in most of the world, including Denmark and exluding probably only Holland. You should see the comments to Danish websites discussing the exlusion of cars from more streets, or lowered speed limits etc. The same bloodthirstyness, car centricity and vengefulness that you get in English speaking countries.
#663
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 1,832
Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Hagen is now saying that I, Forester, have told him that taking the lane on a blind curve is not VC. I have never so written, to Hagen or anyone else. Rather, as long ago as 1976 I wrote that when the right-hand edge of the road is obscured, as by a high bank or wall, then cycling near the edge shortens the sight distance and cycling further left lengthens the sight distance to that for normal traffic, so that the cyclist is well advised to ride in the place for normal traffic.
I guess I can see how mr. Forester can, in his desperation, interpret my sentence as saying that he has stated that taking the lane in a curve is not VC. I don't think it's in accordance with standard rules of grammar, but never mind. The thing is, this is another grasping-at-straws instead of offering arguments against the substance. Small wonder. No such arguments exist outside his Utopia.
#664
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 1,832
Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I add to whatever reasons Digital Cowboy gave for the reason that Dutch-style infrastructure would not "work" in the USA. Most cities of the USA grew up in the automotive era, while most cities in The Netherlands grew up in the medieval era using horse, boat, and walking transport. When urban cyclists in a medieval city are asked why they cycle, one of the most common answers is that cycling is faster than walking. When urban cyclists in an automotive city are asked for the major disadvantages of cycling, one of the most common answers is that cycling is slower than motoring. The difference between those two answers illustrates why the implementation of Dutch-style cycling in the typical city of the USA will not "work" as it does in The Netherlands.
Bring on the myths. Or just read https://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com...-one-post.html
PS: But is it relevant to the discussion of lane-taking, or are we once more being dragged into a mire of diversions, evasions etc.? I think we are.
Last edited by hagen2456; 07-08-12 at 11:30 AM.
#665
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Oh dear. In 1976? Vital information!
I guess I can see how mr. Forester can, in his desperation, interpret my sentence as saying that he has stated that taking the lane in a curve is not VC. I don't think it's in accordance with standard rules of grammar, but never mind. The thing is, this is another grasping-at-straws instead of offering arguments against the substance. Small wonder. No such arguments exist outside his Utopia.
I guess I can see how mr. Forester can, in his desperation, interpret my sentence as saying that he has stated that taking the lane in a curve is not VC. I don't think it's in accordance with standard rules of grammar, but never mind. The thing is, this is another grasping-at-straws instead of offering arguments against the substance. Small wonder. No such arguments exist outside his Utopia.
Given those words, I stand by my claim that Hagen has written that controlling the lane in a blind curve is VC and that I, Forester, have told him that this is not VC. I therefore repeat my suggestion that the least offensive explanation for this behavior by Hagen is his poor command of the English language.
#666
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 1,832
Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Am I the only one finding this post from mr. Forester absolutely ridiculous and irrelevant to the discussion?
#667
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,974
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,536 Times
in
1,045 Posts
Since when?
Last edited by I-Like-To-Bike; 07-08-12 at 12:41 PM.
#668
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 1,832
Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Heh. I will this one time admit that mr. Forester has a point, as he obviously finds my posts difficult to decipher due to my imperfect command of English. He does apparently find it very difficult to see the wood(s) for trees. Some people have this problem, and my experience is that even in one's mother tongue, it can be quite difficult do have a conversation with them. So small wonder that he finds it difficult to understand what I'm trying to say.
#669
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Cerritos, Ca.
Posts: 562
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Heh. I will this one time admit that mr. Forester has a point, as he obviously finds my posts difficult to decipher due to my imperfect command of English. He does apparently find it very difficult to see the wood(s) for trees. Some people have this problem, and my experience is that even in one's mother tongue, it can be quite difficult do have a conversation with them. So small wonder that he finds it difficult to understand what I'm trying to say.
#670
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,974
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,536 Times
in
1,045 Posts
Misleading paraphrasing and "re-interpretations" of others' intent (regardless of vocabulary or grammar) in order to set up straw man arguments to rebut are standard tools of the trade for the gentleman.
#671
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 1,832
Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
In the instance he comments on above, his comprehension (and mine) from reading your post makes it sounds like your believe Forester made a comment that he never made or intended to make a point of. We all understand your words, but sometimes the point you are trying to make in actuality might be different from the way you arranged the words.
"What this - and the other example of the blind curve - tells us is, that IF you ride VC in such a place (and now mr. Forester tells me that it isn't VC, though several people here told me it is, and the only right thing to do),"
and
"What this tells us is, that IF you ride VC in such a place (and now mr. Forester tells me that it isn't VC, though several people here told me it is, and the only right thing to do),"?
This is the difference, right: "- and the other example of the blind curve -"? Inserted between dashes. Used, typically as a way of saying "and, by the way, so-and-so".
So, what does that tell us? In my view, that my statement "and now mr. Forester tells me that it isn't VC" refers to the "this" in "what this tells us" - "this" being the rider who was killed taking the lane near the hilltop, and NOT to what's between the dashes. The context - not least his own post, #651 - should make it crystal clear. That would be the case in Danish, though of course it just might give cause for doubt in that language, too. My limited knowledge of English makes it impossible for me to know if this would be the case in that language.
Last edited by hagen2456; 07-08-12 at 02:10 PM.
#672
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Okay then, let's have a short analysis of the sentence in question. What is the difference between saying
"What this - and the other example of the blind curve - tells us is, that IF you ride VC in such a place (and now mr. Forester tells me that it isn't VC, though several people here told me it is, and the only right thing to do),"
and
"What this tells us is, that IF you ride VC in such a place (and now mr. Forester tells me that it isn't VC, though several people here told me it is, and the only right thing to do),"?
This is the difference, right: "- and the other example of the blind curve -"? Inserted between dashes. Used, typically as a way of saying "and, by the way, so-and-so".
So, what does that tell us? In my view, that my statement "and now mr. Forester tells me that it isn't VC" refers to the "this" in "what this tells us" - "this" being the rider who was killed taking the lane near the hilltop, and NOT to what's between the dashes. The context - not least his own post, #651 - should make it crystal clear. That would be the case in Danish, though of course it just might give cause for doubt in that language, too. My limited knowledge of English makes it impossible for me to know if this would be the case in that language.
"What this - and the other example of the blind curve - tells us is, that IF you ride VC in such a place (and now mr. Forester tells me that it isn't VC, though several people here told me it is, and the only right thing to do),"
and
"What this tells us is, that IF you ride VC in such a place (and now mr. Forester tells me that it isn't VC, though several people here told me it is, and the only right thing to do),"?
This is the difference, right: "- and the other example of the blind curve -"? Inserted between dashes. Used, typically as a way of saying "and, by the way, so-and-so".
So, what does that tell us? In my view, that my statement "and now mr. Forester tells me that it isn't VC" refers to the "this" in "what this tells us" - "this" being the rider who was killed taking the lane near the hilltop, and NOT to what's between the dashes. The context - not least his own post, #651 - should make it crystal clear. That would be the case in Danish, though of course it just might give cause for doubt in that language, too. My limited knowledge of English makes it impossible for me to know if this would be the case in that language.
Since Hagen now asserts that his statement refers only to the cyclist killed near the top of a hill, I now also state that nowhere have I told Hagen, or anybody, that taking the lane near a hilltop is not following VC principles.
As for Hagen's claim that my post #651 should make clear the context of these later discussions, my post disclaimed the ability to see through hills that Hagen appeared to be arguing was the basis of an argument. I fail to see that referring to #651 assists in clarifying #671.
#673
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Cerritos, Ca.
Posts: 562
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Okay then, let's have a short analysis of the sentence in question. What is the difference between saying
"What this - and the other example of the blind curve - tells us is, that IF you ride VC in such a place (and now mr. Forester tells me that it isn't VC, though several people here told me it is, and the only right thing to do),"
"What this - and the other example of the blind curve - tells us is, that IF you ride VC in such a place (and now mr. Forester tells me that it isn't VC, though several people here told me it is, and the only right thing to do),"
#674
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 1,832
Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The "and" between "this" and "the other example of the blind curve" says that both the entity referred to as "this" and the "blind curve" share the same characteristics. I chose to answer the "blind curve" part because it was specifically named, rather than bother about misunderstandings regarding the antecedent of "this".
Since Hagen now asserts that his statement refers only to the cyclist killed near the top of a hill, I now also state that nowhere have I told Hagen, or anybody, that taking the lane near a hilltop is not following VC principles.
As for Hagen's claim that my post #651 should make clear the context of these later discussions, my post disclaimed the ability to see through hills that Hagen appeared to be arguing was the basis of an argument. I fail to see that referring to #651 assists in clarifying #671.
Since Hagen now asserts that his statement refers only to the cyclist killed near the top of a hill, I now also state that nowhere have I told Hagen, or anybody, that taking the lane near a hilltop is not following VC principles.
As for Hagen's claim that my post #651 should make clear the context of these later discussions, my post disclaimed the ability to see through hills that Hagen appeared to be arguing was the basis of an argument. I fail to see that referring to #651 assists in clarifying #671.
#675
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 1,832
Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I referred to #651 to show that as he had already told me that etc. etc., he had no reason to believe that I still thought that etc. etc. Now, should we put an end to this crazyness and see if we can get some kind of response from mr. Forester regarding the substance?
On second thoughts, I think I need a break. My head spins from being presented with so much lunacy.