chipcom 

I wear evening gowns and have a big sign that says "IF YOU CAN CATCH ME, YOU CAN HAVE ME!"


I rarely get passed.

njkayaker

No one is saying that the point is to "maintain some arbitrary distance". The point of locking up firearms isn't to lock them up either. Since getting hit by a car means the car was too close, actions that increase the distance reduce the likelihood of a collision. The distance is a no-cost alternative for getting killed or injured for determining the effect of an action.

Yes, and it shows!

dougmc

For an added bonus, pull a child's trailer all the time -- one of the enclosed types, so people can't even see if there's a child in it.

Cars will give you 12 or more feet of clearance, as if you were pulling explosives!

chipcom 

Anyone with kids KNOWS that kids can be VERY explosive.

electrik

Look for this symbol on the products you buy:


Seriously though, i don't think anybody knows how to keep cars away... they'll get you even in the saftey of your own home

They'll get you when you're watching a movie


Really the list goes on and on. We are no longer on the top of the food chain.

ianbrettcooper

Maybe they were trying to find Country Kitchen Buffet.

electrik

Pretty sure that may be the case here, he must of been angry he missed the discount.

ghettocruiser

No. Not even almost.

Pulled my kid to daycare for a summer a few years back. Flags, 3 flashers, ANSI lime cover on the back of the trailer on residential sidestreets.

Still got passed closer than 3 feet at least once a week, and almost no cars were on those roads.

GriddleCakes

Boy howdy, there is some classic internet foolishness going on in this thread right here. Seriously, it's straight up textbook. This is waaaaaaay off topic, but if y'all will indulge me, I'd like to explore some of the preceding posts, culminating in an ancient and venerable Punk Move. And if you won't indulge, then scroll on by. Ain't no one forcing you to read my ramblings, so ramble on. Now let's begin.

The Original Post, setting the topic (I know, this is elementary. I'm building kind of an Internet Argument Proof, so I have to state the obvious to build the foundation for this demonstration). What is the topic? "How to keep cars away and get passing clearance." Here rydabent relates a cycling technique that he uses to encourage motorists to pass him at a safe distance:
degnaw provides a personal anecdote as a rebuttal. Nothing wrong with that, but note the fallacy in degnaw's implied conclusion. rydabent stated that his wobbling tactic "usually" gave him comfortable passing distance from cars, ergo the tactic will fail from time to time. As degnaw only tried the maneuver once, his account of it's single failure in no way disproves the effectiveness of the maneuver. degnaw has made a false implied conclusion (that the tactic is useless) stemming from misreading the premise. degnaw's stated conclusion, that the tactic did not work that one time, follows directly from his anecdote and is sound:
Next we have a rebuttal of degnaw's rebuttal. Except, instead of pointing out the obvious fallacy stemming from degnaw's misreading of the OP's statement, we are presented with a tangent argument that also misreads the initial statement. The OP did not state that wobbling would prevent a collision (although it is certainly implied, as a car cannot both pass at a safe distance and collide with the object it is passing [however, a car can pass at an unsafe distance without colliding with the object]), and degnaw did not state that the tactic was ineffective because he was not hit. Hence, ian's statement is also false:
The falseness of ian's statement is pointed out. This is done using a simple if-then argument, restating the premise from the original post to defend the soundness of degnaw's stated conclusion. To argue against this statement, one would have to argue the validity of the conclusion, not the original premise that is providing the framework for the entire conversation:
Non sequitur time! Here's where it starts to get fun. Instead of addressing the previous argument, ian attempts to change the original premise from "how to keep cars away and get passing clearance" to how to "avoid being injured or killed." This is generally recognized in debating circles as a punk move. Why do this? I can only guess at ian's motivation, but I would hypothesize that by vastly broadening the scope of the conversation, ian hopes his earlier rebuttal might somehow become true, given the greater context into which he's framing it.
Also, note the implied attack on the concept of a safe passing distance. Why the quotes around the word safe? For emphasis, or sarcasm maybe? What about it is arbitrary? degnaw's anecdote provided defined values; "1 foot" and "45mph" are not arbitrary terms. Does ian feel that the passing situation in degnaw's anecdote was safe, and that degnaw is being arbitrary in deeming it unsafe? I have no idea, but feel free to interpret for yourselves:
I don't want to repost the entire first page, so from here I'll summarize. Several people posted rebuttals to ian's previous post, pointing out that encouraging a safe passing distance is an excellent way to avoid injury or death. Bekologist and njkayaker both posted strong arguments, which ian did not respond to. ghettocruiser posted a couple of tangent or weak arguments, which ian did respond to. Cherry picking your debate opponents in an internet forum based upon the ease of rebuttal is generally recognized in internet squares (or nerd circles, if you will) as a punk move, by the way.

At this point, I would expect things to devolve to personal attacks. When you debate with someone how does not know how (and of course does not know that they do not know), even rational people can get very frustrated and start calling names. But ian wisely cuts off further exploration of the increasingly muddied topic with this gem:
Thats right, it's the old I'm Taking My Ball and I'm Going Home closer, a true forum classic. Is there any better way cede the field without admitting defeat? It's the debater's Retrograde Maneuver, his Rearward Advance. Note how ian absolves himself of any responsibility towards defending his own statements ("further talk is futile"), accuses others of taking what he says "way to seriously" (does this mean he was joking earlier? internet sarcasm is so difficult ), and at the same time downplays the consequences of being wrong ("just an internet forum" and "[t]his ain't the United Nations"). All hallmarks of this wonderfully useful and classic maneuver.

It's a shame that ian isn't interested in working on his debate skills, because doing so would certain help whenever he wished to discuss and explore the merits of ideas and ideals with other human beings. And isn't that all an internet forum is, a place to discuss and debate (and post bike pr0n)?

Blah blah blah, what was the point of all this, you might ask? Good question! It was kind of fun (for me, anyway), and it was a great way to stall me from having to clean my kitchen (actually, that sucks, these dishes still aren't done). But mostly I think that it provides a decent cautionary tale. If you find that many of your conversations on the 'net end in the old Take-Ball-Going-Home routine, perhaps it's time to re-evaluate how you discuss ideas with other people, how you take in new ideas, and how you recognize when to discard old beliefs that might no longer be correct or useful. Plus, people will be much more willing to take you seriously if, whenever you talk yourself into a corner or debate into a dead-end (we all do it from time to time), you own up the fact that you might be wrong, instead of pulling some punk move.

ianbrettcooper

I've never seen so much verbiage devoted to what was merely a ten word tongue-in-cheek comment. I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition. Heck, I'd probably be less likely to be raked over the coals if I'd made some sort of racial slur. Some of you folks have way too much time on your hands and an unsettling need to pick apart every word so that you can assume the worst of people, and then persecute them for it.

What's next? Are you going to force me to sit in the comfy chair while you poke me with the soft cushions?

Look, kid. This is an internet forum, not a Spanish dungeon, and you're just some dude, not Tomás de Torquemada. Get over yourself!

I mean people are trying to have an on-topic discussion here. No one wants to hear about me defending some comment I made over 25 posts ago. We've done that. It's over! Leave your dissertations for college.

Bekologist

No, Ian. I hope i can speak for the group when i say we'd all hope you take GriddleCakes' advice to heart in your future postings to bike forums.

"I'm Taking My Ball, and I'm Going Home"

Griddlecakes assessment was hilarious and erudite.

I need to reiterate: The use of lane positioning to influence motorists overtaking is well ingrained in defensive roadway cycling techniques.

Wesley36

GriddleCakes' advice needs to be promulgated widely on internet forums- this is a common problem. More thinking, more "listening" (ie reading and comprehending before replying), less typing. But yes, adding more posts that are defensive and miss the point totally is counter-productive and just makes the poster look silly. Rather than getting defensive, it might be time to say "hmmm... this is something to think about".

digibud

I've done a great deal of riding in traffic and taught a few Effective Cycling classes. The only technique I know of is to move left as a car approaches forcing them a bit left, the move right as they pass, giving you some added room. I don't wobble or swerve, I simply ride an extr two feet to the left, them move right as they pass.

Bekologist

if you've taught traffic skills 101 you know, then, that riding far enough to the left so as to not encourage unsafe, within the lane passes is a prime directive and a technique embodied in those skills classes.

njkayaker

Lots of hyperbole here.

You said something inane. People called you on it. You got upset and defensive.

Maybe, you should stop doing that.

digibud

Absolutely. I always ride far enough to the left that I don't have to swerve out to avoid a storm drain or a car door or whatever. Often people ride as far to the right as they can, then they need to move left as they see a storm drain or some other obstacle ahead and are faced with the problem of a steady stream of cars that they now have a problem with instead of keeping a safe distance from the curb in the first place. But there are also times when I see somebody bearing down on me in the right lane with nobody in the left lane. I have no need to take up the entire right lane so I'll happily move a bit further left, pushing them a bit more left, then move back to a comfortable place as they pass. I make an exception for professional 18 wheelers. I like to get really really close to them so I can get some tail wind .

madpogue 

(Apologies to the bad boys from Texas...)
"Big shoes, rubber nose;
sounds just like a bicycle horn that blows.
Fake ears, frizzy hair;
You don't wanna know what's growin' in there.

They come runnin' in from all over town,
'cuz every girl's crazy 'bout a sharp-dressed clown...."

ghettocruiser

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

electrik

+1

Rollfast

Why not lag behind until it's safe for you to overtake them and not get into side traffic as well.

Why is it any different that when you are a motorist?

I wasn't born in a barn, my grandpa was a dairy farmer though.

You guys seem to feel that common sense in Idaho is different than common sense elsewhere.

What does common mean?

Is common sense waiting until my weekly digest to comment, after I've had time to assess things?

mikewille

this has been funner than hell!

ianbrettcooper

'Common sense' is an oxymoron. Sense is never common, in Idaho or anywhere else.

skye

Gotta love it. Now we get a freakin' tutorial on the proper way to engage in forum debate? C'mon, cut me a break. I consider fora like this pretty much on the same level as conversations at a bar. Mostly entertainment, partially informational. I'm not sure I need anybody's half-baked directives on the proper way to participate, beyond the rules the forum admins promulgate.

And if someone doesn't like the way the conversation is going and wants to move to another table, so what? I don't care, unless they've been paying for the beers.

slowandsteady

This is what I do. I either move left or stay left then move over as they pass. You can get at minimum 3 feet this way and often much more.

Rollfast

Ian, any kind of sense should dictate that at 44 I should have grey hair myself reading A&S sometimes but I'm too stubborn for anything but the angel of death.

If you don't watch what you do, where you're at and stop pretending a Chevy can truly obey you any more than a locomotive hauling Chevys, you can still get killed by almost everything.

Concentrate on the big picture. Myopia is rather painful.