Yeah. Thanks Galen, for being such a Pompous Poster Boy!

Not a problem. Glad to be of assistance. Please send cash only or certified check. Now move along and go ride in the MUP with the rest of the girlymen.

How is it the "other guy's" fault when disagreements happen?

Hmmm, if you or others were joking, on either side of the aisle, it was not clear to me.

Given the long history of interaction in the forum, it would be easier to cut back on the playful banter and let things cool down a bit.

OH YEAH? Well....well...you're just a roadie wussy-boy who wears tights and shaves his legs...so there! Gawd you turn me on! :love: :lol: :p

not so fast, chipcom-- Galen is mine! that temper of his is soooo sexsay.

So, since I enjoy riding in traffic as well as riding on MUPs, does that mean I am both a girly-man and a wussy-boy? Or, since I don't ride exclusively one way or the other, am I neither?

Confused,
Jalopy

Don't be confused, those few characters who claim to be special due to their membership in the elitist Serious Cyclist Club ARE Serious.

...

You are only a girlyman if you complain about riding in traffic...

Nothing inherently wrong with a MUP for riding with kids or novices other than the fact that if it was once a rail line, it would serve a better purpose as a...rail line.

Nah, the VC debate has been segregated into it's own subforum on purpose so we can all get muddy together.

BTW - I'm not on the 'other side of the isle' except in the minds of the self-proclaimed VC zealots.

Well, if you say so, I'll have to take your word. I'm still a little fuzzy on it since you already called me a girly-man and I had not complained about riding in traffic. What about "wussy-boy", can I still be one of those?

Well I'm glad that ruling has finally been made. What about all those cyclists in the commuting forum who admitted to sometimes riding on MUPs even without kids (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=233197)? Can we call them "girly-men"?

Jalopy

PS - for Horse's benefit, I'm being facetious. As far as I'm concerned, if your ride a bicycle, you are a real cyclist.

...

As this thread makes clear, to those self proclaimed zealots/Serious Cyclists, a person is either with "us" (the Serious and Real Cyclists who fit the right profile) or is an anti-VCer/girly man wandering aimlessly about dinging a bell.

:beer:

Do you literally mean bike lanes here--the emphasis in your text is mine--or do you mean facilities?

Hah! Very good. It isn't clear where the aisle is located ... but I just guessed from the direction of fire.

However, I do think we would be better off staying out of the mud.

I like to think of myself as a cyclist who regularly practices "VC riding" and I do believe that for a certain type of riding that staying on roads is far safer. Although for both of those statements, there are exceptions.

I have a hard time seeing a strong connection between bicycle facilities and a loss of road priviliges or lessened status of the cyclist. I think that there are particular situations where the availability of such facilities could be exploited for that purpose. Anecdotally writing, it is clear to me that there are many who enjoy such facilities ... even ones that I find quite dangerous. In my opinion, we can deter the aforementioned negative effects of bicycle facilities through strong advocacy and interaction with others. So I have a hard time standing in the way of a popular desire without a strong empirical justification for denying it.

Regarding the LAB reform, in my opinion, they have some valid complaints. I think that it is a terrible precedent for the LAB granting an award to a city that limits or revokes cycling rights. Although it could be the case that the city more than compensated with rights or facilities elsewhere.

That statement is preposterous. Rights are inalienable and universal. Even if a local government installs bike facilities and cyclists are not required by law to utilize them, the local motoring populace will think that cyclist should us the facilities and plenty of 'street justice' will ensue.

You're a bi cyclist. :)

In a practical sense, all rights have limits. Society can even take your life if it believes there is justification ... which is determined by society.

I think that there can be an acceptable trade-off. In the abstract it isn't too hard to think of examples.

I used to think that, until my last job when a good part of my commute route was parallel to a MUP...and my present commute that also runs parallel to a MUP for a good piece. I've been told that 'I belong on the path' exactly once...and that wasn't during a commute, but rather on a weekend group ride when some idiot decided to pass us about 100ft from a stop sign and I called him some choice words. On the old route, the road was narrow with no shoulder, so I was often 'in the way' of impatient rush-hour motorists.

The other strange thing...of all the commuters I see on those portions of my route, only a few are actually riding the road, I see the majority on the MUP when it is visible.

So you see, at least around here I've found that facilities don't cause drivers to force us off the road and I see that a lot of folks find value in those facilities for transportation purposes. So what makes me so high and mighty that I should think I am somehow smarter, more skilled, braver or safer than they are? Nada, cuz i ain't and I see no reason to diss their preferences as long as they ain't messing with mine.

I have to say this, Galen....

Your name sake, Galen of Rome was a physician....all about healing, whereas you seem intent on divisive tactics. Not an attack, just an observation.

It's true Galen of Rome was a physician. But, the bicycle had yet to be invented, so what does that have to do with it?

But back on topic, the title of the thread is 'The Division' and I propose that there are basically two types of cyclists:

1) Nanny-state cyclist who are afraid to ride on the road and do not possess the necessary skills or the disposition to learn the skills that would enable them to ride on the road. They need and want 'accomodations' to make up for their shortcomings.

2) Everybody else.

I wasn't referring to what you said, rather the mode of saying if you know what you mean!;)

I don't agree with your simplistic dichotomy but I do find it amusing that you continue to prove the point that elitist snobs are causing division in the cycling community.

Consider, for a moment, a woman who commutes to my office by bicycle. She rides exclusively on a MUP/sidewalk. She is scared of riding with traffic. As someone interested in actual cycling advocacy, I congratulate her on making the effort and try to encourage her to improve her skills and educate her with regards to cycling safety and technique. You, judging from your behaviour here, would, no doubt, rather point at her, mock her and probably make a few snide comments about her weight.

Do you real consider what you are doing "advocacy"?

Jalopy