NationStates Jolt Archive

So, clearly, automobiles are the scourge of the earth. So my question is this, are you a biker, and what kind of biker are you?

Are you a hipster kid who rides a fixie and wears tight jeans and a mandatory messenger bag? Maybe you look like this?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_1Zb7K43b1D4/SFj0Oy13bTI/AAAAAAAAAXE/L3-cdqVll8o/s400/fixie-rider.jpg

Are you a wannabe Lance Armstrong type who rides a road bike and wears tight spandex?
http://bp3.blogger.com/_58PErfRkJKM/SHI2pOYH1hI/AAAAAAAABZQ/157-xtE9lsU/s320/Clown_Bike.JPG

Or maybe your just some old guy trying to get to work riding along at 2 mph?
http://image.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/bike_commuter_old_lady.jpg

Anybody who lives in a big city has surely seen a plethora of any of these people, so maybe your just a driver/pedestrian/public transport kind of guy?

What does everyone think of bikers, are they mere obstacles to be run over as you drive to work in your 4 mpg SUV, or should we all share the road? What do you think of bike sharing programs like they have in France and Barcelona? (I hope no ones made a thread on this already, I tried searching)

Never spandex, never.

I don't ride a bike. I walk or drive.

I can't ride a bike, and when I learn to drive I'm going to knock all the cyclists over for taunting me with their superior balance and coordination :D

Also: In before "Your mum's a bike"

Never spandex, never.

It makes you more aerodynamic!

It makes you more aerodynamic!

Which is particularly helpful when cycling at supersonic speeds.

I don't ride a bike. I walk or drive.
Lazy shit.
It makes you more aerodynamic!
Meh.

Which is particularly helpful when cycling at supersonic speeds.

is there another way?

Don't have a bike atm. If I am to get one, I'll be the one that everyone hates, that slows down the traffic and elbows drivers in the face as they drive past. Then I'll whine about how they're the annoying ones. It will be awesome.

Something between the professional racer and the high-speed commuter (by high speed I mean something between 40 and 50 km/h as top speed when I commute by bicycle).

Never spandex, never.

If you plan to run more than 50 km in a day, spandex is a must if you don't want to damage your most beloved parts.

I have legs and access to a whole kaleidoscope of options on how to get somewhere

I can't ride a bike

this.

If you plan to run more than 50 km in a day, spandex is a must if you don't want to damage your most beloved parts.

but where do you put your wallet :confused:

and why does this cucumber smell funny >_>

If you plan to run more than 50 km in a day, spandex is a must if you don't want to damage your most beloved parts.

Run 50km!? Are you crazy? I can't run 100m.

I'm kind of a mix of the first 3. I am young, and often wear something similar to a messenger bag, I ride a road bike, and that road bike has fenders, lights, and a milk crate attached to it. I would never be caught wearing tight jeans, and the chance of me wearing spandex isn't much higher. I guess I'm closest to the old commuter guy.

Eh of the options given, closest to Hipster Kid, but really it's more "commuter who sometimes takes their bag with them".

I'm just a guy on a bike. I'm new to this whole biking thing, I didn't know I had to join a pre-set gang before taking off. Damn, I must have been the laughing stock of the entire town.

Run 50km!? Are you crazy? I can't run 100m.

I assume he means "bike". Trying to run 50km would kill 99.99% of people.

I'm just a guy on a bike. I'm new to this whole biking thing, I didn't know I had to join a pre-set gang before taking off. Damn, I must have been the laughing stock of the entire town.

Watch the movie Quicksilver (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091814/), starring Kevin Bacon and you will understand.

http://www.pedalpushersonline.com/images/quicksilver_01.jpg

but where do you put your wallet :confused:

There are pockets on the back of the shirt.

Run 50km!? Are you crazy? I can't run 100m.

Yah, of course I meant "bike". Sorry guys.
My current distance record is Milano-Genova on secondary roads in a day. About 160 km, 6 hours.

So, clearly, automobiles are the scourge of the earth. So my question is this, are you a biker, and what kind of biker are you?
Not anymore, but the 999cc kind.


What does everyone think of bikers, are they mere obstacles to be run over as you drive to work in your 4 mpg SUV,
In my 29mpg full-size offroader SUV.


What do you think of bike sharing programs like they have in France and Barcelona?
I understand why carpool, but bikepooling - you mean bicycles, right? They cost like... $400 a pop? Don't see why.

I'm more the guy training for a 100-mile event that goes over three mountains and through three states. You don't have a gang for that guy, but there are 2500 of us.

Watch the movie Quicksilver (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091814/), starring Kevin Bacon and you will understand.


I think I will.

I understand why carpool, but bikepooling - you mean bicycles, right? They cost like... $400 a pop? Don't see why.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A9lo%27v

I think it's a great idea (even though I wouldn't use it because I already have a bike). It allows you to pick up or drop off a bike anywhere in the city. Costs less and you don't have to worry about maintenance. It's really great for people who wouldn't normally think of biking to get around the city.

It allows you to pick up or drop off a bike anywhere in the city. Costs less and you don't have to worry about maintenance. It's really great for people who wouldn't normally think of biking to get around the city.
But then you get a crappy bike. Which you don't want if riding full-time.

It seems interesting though. I'd consider it if I was in one of those cities and my current religion wasn't forbidding me from riding a bicycle :-(.


The sharply increased rate after 2 hours of continued use ensures each individual bike is used between 10 and 15 times a day by different people. More than 95% of the rides are shorter than 30 minutes. When a bicycle is returned it is necessary to wait 10 minutes before taking another one, again for free.
:-\
So they're encouraging people who need to travel more than 30 minutes to burn some gas instead. Strange.

i put segway okay i don't really have one and they are illegal in the UK(where i live)
but instead of bike rental segway rental ^_^

But then you get a crappy bike. Which you don't want if riding full-time.It's meant for commuting to work and around the city, not riding for leisure or fun.

It seems interesting though. I'd consider it if I was in one of those cities and my current religion wasn't forbidding me from riding a bicycle :-(.What religion is that? I'm pretty sure even the Amish are allowed to ride bicycles.



:-\
So they're encouraging people who need to travel more than 30 minutes to burn some gas instead. Strange.

Well, considering I can ride across the entire city in under 30 minutes, I don't think it's that big an issue. If your biking that far to get to work or something, you should probably go ahead and buy a nice bike. Otherwise, public transit is your best bet. The real issue is they don't want people riding to their destination and keeping the bike with them for any period of time. Take the bike, ride to your destination, drop it off at the station so someone else can use it. It would also be great for late at night when public transit is either non-existent or incredibly infrequent now that I think about it.

Nonelectric exercise bike. Seriously. It beats trying to bike into the wind around here.

What religion is that? I'm pretty sure even the Amish are allowed to ride bicycles.
We worship Jeremy Clarkson, and he forbids his followers to ride bicycles, because they don't pollute the environment :-(


Could always shop for another religion though, if it was the last issue.

[QUOTE=NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ;14715859]Well, I considering I can ride across the entire city in under 30 minutes, I don't think it's that big an issue.
Ah. Then it makes sense.

I assume he means "bike". Trying to run 50km would kill 99.99% of people.
It's only 5miles more than a marathon.



Yah, of course I meant "bike". Sorry guys.
My current distance record is Milano-Genova on secondary roads in a day. About 160 km, 6 hours.

Mine is 80miles in 5hours.

It's only 5miles more than a marathon.

My point still stands.

WTF is up with ADULTS who ride on the SIDEWALK? I can't tell you how many people I've seen knocked down by idiots who don't know they need to be in the street like any other vehicle.

Or cyclists who don't signal what they are doing?
Cyclists riding against traffic?

I live in Cambridge, England, of course I cycle just like every other student. I am actually known for following road markings and traffic lights. Shocking. I am a failure to my heritage.

My point still stands.

It wouldn't kill 99.9% of people. It would kill me.

WTF is up with ADULTS who ride on the SIDEWALK? I can't tell you how many people I've seen knocked down by idiots who don't know they need to be in the street like any other vehicle.

Or cyclists who don't signal what they are doing?
Cyclists riding against traffic?

What's up with drivers when you're on a bike? Bastards.

What's up with drivers when you're on a bike? Bastards.

Bike are vehicles and they belong on the road. That's where vehicles go. No one wants me riding 40 miles an hour on the sidewalk. It puts me in danger and it puts the people on the sidewalk in danger. If your city sucks too much to make bike lanes, then complain to the city. However, until that happens, I'll be, rightfully, right there on the road where I belong.

Well, if you'd give us a clue wtf you're doing before veering in front of us or running the red light, maybe there'd be fewer close calls and collisions?

I'm one of those inconsiderate bastards who looks before flinging my door open, btw, stops for red lights and stop signs and signals lane changes. You know. Obeying the rules of the road that governs ALL vehicular traffic.

Well, if you'd give us a clue wtf you're doing before veering in front of us or running the red light, maybe there'd be fewer close calls and collisions?

I'm one of those inconsiderate bastards who looks before flinging my door open, btw, stops for red lights and stop signs and signals lane changes. You know. Obeying the rules of the road that governs ALL vehicular traffic.

Agreed, which is why you won't see me doing those things. Just like I don't roll stop signs in a car or speed up on yellow, or weave in and out of traffic, or refuse to use signals, etc. See, some bicyclists, like some drivers, don't really respect the rules of the road. There is no evidence the problem is greater in cyclists, and it's not relevant to how we should be treated on the road.

Gross generalization is a fallacy for a reason.

WTF is up with ADULTS who ride on the SIDEWALK? I can't tell you how many people I've seen knocked down by idiots who don't know they need to be in the street like any other vehicle.
I guess out of vehicular suicide and vehicular homicide they choose the latter.


Being crunched by an H1 driven by a mom who hasn't noticed you, being distracted by putting up makeup while shouting at the kids in the back isn't likely to be very much fun.

Bike are vehicles and they belong on the road. That's where vehicles go. No one wants me riding 40 miles an hour on the sidewalk. It puts me in danger and it puts the people on the sidewalk in danger. If your city sucks too much to make bike lanes, then complain to the city. However, until that happens, I'll be, rightfully, right there on the road where I belong.
I never go on the pavement as I know how annoying it is.
Well, if you'd give us a clue wtf you're doing before veering in front of us or running the red light, maybe there'd be fewer close calls and collisions?

I'm one of those inconsiderate bastards who looks before flinging my door open, btw, stops for red lights and stop signs and signals lane changes. You know. Obeying the rules of the road that governs ALL vehicular traffic.
Ah, once I was cycling up the road at about 20/5mph and some prick opened his car door, thus garotting me.

Cars are just as bad at not indicating.

Well, if you'd give us a clue wtf you're doing before veering in front of us or running the red light, maybe there'd be fewer close calls and collisions?If someone is riding properly, they should look back towards the lane they're switching into. Anyway, what do you care, you're safe inside your car :D

I'm one of those inconsiderate bastards who looks before flinging my door open, btw, stops for red lights and stop signs and signals lane changes. You know. Obeying the rules of the road that governs ALL vehicular traffic.

I'll ride through red lights if there's no traffic coming, same as I would jaywalk if there were no cars coming.

If someone riding properly, they should look back towards the lane they're switching into. Anyway, what do you care, you're safe inside your car :D

Yes, I love when drivers pretend they're so upset by this stuff. They're mad because bikes are often going slower than traffic. It's not about it being dangerous, because I have yet to see even a single driver killed because a bicyclist hit them so hard.

They are in far graver danger from other cars and trucks, yet they don't claim they should be on the sidewalks. It's about speed. No more. No less. It's also why they get pissed when cyclists run red lights or stop signs. It's just so unfair. They get ahead during the lights. Booooo!

I'll ride through red lights if there's no traffic coming, same as I would jaywalk if there were no cars coming.

In both cases, you'd be violating the law.

WTF is up with ADULTS who ride on the SIDEWALK? I can't tell you how many people I've seen knocked down by idiots who don't know they need to be in the street like any other vehicle.

"if you don't pay road tax get off it" as I often shout to annoying cyclist who think they own the road

In both cases, you'd be violating the law.

In both cases, the police do not care.

"if you don't pay road tax get off it" as I often shout to annoying cyclist who think they own the road

Uh, what? What makes you think I don't pay taxes? In fact, there's an excellent chance I pay more in taxes than you do, what with the owning to registered vehicles, property, a business, and being single and rich with no children.

In both cases, the police do not care.

I think you'll discover that they do, actually. I've seen cyclists ticketed. I've been ticketed for not having a light once. I've also seen jaywalkers ticketed. I do happen to jaywalk, but that's irrelevant.

I think you'll discover that they do, actually. I've seen cyclists ticketed. I've been ticketed for not having a light once. I've also seen jaywalkers ticketed. I do happen to jaywalk, but that's irrelevant.

They don't ticket cyclists or jaywalkers in my city. If I wanted to, I could ride on the sidewalk without being ticketed. I do happen to think that shouldn't be allowed though.

They don't ticket cyclists or jaywalkers in my city. If I wanted to, I could ride on the sidewalk without being ticketed. I do happen to think that shouldn't be allowed though.

I think you're guessing. I'll venture that you don't have the first clue what they do or don't ticket in your city.

I think you're guessing. I'll venture that you don't have the first clue what they do or don't ticket in your city.

Well, I've run reds and jaywalked in front of police cars, I've seen other people do it, and I've heard from friends that they do it. So................ I think I'll be just fine.

Uh, what? What makes you think I don't pay taxes? In fact, there's an excellent chance I pay more in taxes than you do, what with the owning to registered vehicles, property, a business, and being single and rich with no children.

bicycles don't pay road tax silly

and I'm British leading me to be fairly certain you don't pay a Queen tax

Well, I've run reds and jaywalked in front of police cars, I've seen other people do it, and I've heard from friends that they do it. So................ I think I'll be just fine.

Ah, yes, anecdotal evidence. That's always right. I have friends who have only been robbed by black people. I seen other people robbed only by black people. I've only been robbed by black people. So, only black people commit robbery.

bicycles don't pay road tax silly

and I'm British leading me to be fairly certain you don't pay a Queen tax

You do realize that in some cities, bicycles are licensed, right? You also realize that the roads are payed for by a lot more than vehicle licenses, right?

Regardless, I find it amusing that because they aren't paying for licensing, you think they should ignore the law. Sidewalks are for pedestrians. Guess what the PED in PEDestrian is for.

Ah, yes, anecdotal evidence. That's always right.

I didn't see you quote your sources here:

I think you'll discover that they do, actually. I've seen cyclists ticketed. I've been ticketed for not having a light once. I've also seen jaywalkers ticketed. I do happen to jaywalk, but that's irrelevant.

Hmmmm?

I didn't see you quote your sources here:

My source for what? I didn't make a claim other than I don't think he really knows whether or not jaywalking or running red lights is prosecuted. What source am I supposed to provide? God. I suppose he could give me the town and I could see if I could find anyone record of someone being ticketed for jaywalking.

Hmmmm?

You don't see the difference? I didn't say they ALWAYS care. If I had then his anecdotal evidence would actually be quite good evidence (provided it's true). He said they never care. My anecdotal evidence does quite handily invalidate that.

http://www.ehow.com/how_2073113_fight-jaywalking-ticket.html

Here, better?

http://www.ehow.com/how_2073113_fight-jaywalking-ticket.html

Here, better?

Much.

What do you think of bike sharing programs like they have in France and Barcelona?

It's a fairly good idea. Many other cities have them too including some in the US.

http://www.ibike.org/encouragement/freebike/details.htm

"In 1996, the coalition (Yellow Bike) placed another 150 free, community-use bicycles in St. Paul--a small number considering the possibilities, but large considering ALL labor and materials were donated. Late in 1996, thinking the Yellow Bike project was a good sustainable development project, the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance provided short term funding to allow for part time coordination, research and evaluation. "

"In addition to Yellow Bike Hubs, the coalition has a variety of ongoing projects. For example: Helping businesses start a Corporate Fleet to encourage it’s employees to ride bikes for short business trips and lunch breaks."

As for biking, I don't. A disability makes it impossible for me. I could ride a recumbent three wheeler, I suppose. But I don't really think I'd enjoy being mercilessly tormented about it. That and I live on a farm 20 miles from town.

I agree that bikes and cars should share the road, and that BOTH should obey all the traffic rules. But I do wish that people who ride bikes in rural areas on hilly, windy, narrow highways would attach long vertical poles with an orange flag on top to their bikes. Many times I have crested a hill (at the posted speed limit) and almost creamed a cyclist meandering down the center of the road. While they certainly have every right to be there, for safetys sake they need to make themselves seen.

My source for what? I didn't make a claim other than I don't think he really knows whether or not jaywalking or running red lights is prosecuted. What source am I supposed to provide? God. I suppose he could give me the town and I could see if I could find anyone record of someone being ticketed for jaywalking.And what source should I provide? You cannot prove that an event does not occur. It's common knowledge that you won't get ticketed for running a red light on a bicycle on an empty street in Philadelphia even if there's a cop watching. If you would like to scour the internet, looking for a case proving otherwise, be my guest.


He said they never care. My anecdotal evidence does quite handily invalidate that.Not in my city.

Much.

No, it isn't. It doesn't prove anything we didn't already know. They make and enfoce jaywalking laws. The enforcement is somewhat intermittent. That link doesn't change anything or demonstrate it any better.

And what source should I provide? You cannot prove that an event does not occur. It's common knowledge that you won't get ticketed for running a red light on a bicycle on an empty street in Philadelphia even if there's a cop watching. If you would like to scour the internet, looking for a case proving otherwise, be my guest.


Not in my city.

It's common knowledge, huh? So if I find someone getting a ticket for jaywalking and runing a light, you'll do what? I'll tell you what, if I find proof they actually enforce those laws, will you donate 8 hours of your time to the charity of my choice?

See, I didn't say you were wrong. I said you don't actually know. And that's a fact. Unless you have an order from the chief saying not to enforce that law, then it's entirely discretionary.

I also like how you changed your original claim.

I cannot ride a bike. I learned it, but due to my bad vision, I do not belong on the road. Public transport, walking or using inline skates are my ways to get around.

It's common knowledge, huh? So if I find someone getting a ticket for jaywalking and runing a light, you'll do what? I'll tell you what, if I find proof they actually enforce those laws, will you donate 8 hours of your time to the charity of my choice?

See, I didn't say you were wrong. I said you don't actually know. And that's a fact. Unless you have an order from the chief saying not to enforce that law, then it's entirely discretionary.

I also like how you changed your original claim.

You make it sound like I have some personal standing in this. I really don't care. I'm sorry it's physically impossible to prove that an event does not occur. I don't understand why that matters to you. And no, I wouldn't donate time to a charity I wasn't personally familiar with. And how did I change my claim?

I dress like a fixed-gear but I have a Lance-armstrong type bike. Majority of people I know ride BMX bikes.

You make it sound like I have some personal standing in this. I really don't care. I'm sorry it's physically impossible to prove that an event does not occur. I don't understand why that matters to you. And no, I wouldn't donate time to a charity I wasn't personally familiar with. And how did I change my claim?

You initial claim had nothing to do with a particular city. It was after I called you on it that you narrowed it. And I take it there hasn't been word from on high not to enforce, so we can drop the claim that they won't ticket. It's entirely discretionary.

That said, if you're certain they don't do it, then what danger is there of losing? Or is it possible that, like I said, you don't actually know?

WTF is up with ADULTS who ride on the SIDEWALK? I can't tell you how many people I've seen knocked down by idiots who don't know they need to be in the street like any other vehicle.


I love when I cross the idiots who ride on the pavements when I'm walking. It's the moment when weighing 95 kg pays off.

I love when I cross the idiots who ride on the pavements when I'm walking. It's the moment when weighing 95 kg pays off.

When I walk to walk, cyclists constantly come past me on a fairly narrow pavement. Occasionally they fall as my foot comes out and accidentally clips their back wheel. They land on grass, so don't worry. But what really pisses me off is there's a wide road to cycle on, or even the grass if they don't want to cycle on the road.

When I walk to walk, cyclists constantly come past me on a fairly narrow pavement. Occasionally they fall as my foot comes out and accidentally clips their back wheel. They land on grass, so don't worry. But what really pisses me off is there's a wide road to cycle on, or even the grass if they don't want to cycle on the road.

Well, that depends on where you're walking. Are you talking about a path? Because generally those are slated for walking and cycling? Or are you talking about the sidewalk? Because that's not pavement.

You initial claim had nothing to do with a particular city. It was after I called you on it that you narrowed it.What are you talking about? I said that the police do not care if I run a red light on my bike. The only police who have jurisdiction over ME in this instance are the Philadelphia police, and they don't care. I stand by that claim and like I said twice already, it's impossible for me to prove that claim. Your insistence on this point demonstrates a level of pettiness and triviality that I was not expecting coming into this thread. But please, try harder to impress. And I take it there hasn't been word from on high not to enforce, so we can drop the claim that they won't ticket. It's entirely discretionary.Correct, I have nothing but anecdotal evidence, as I explained to you. Nevertheless, the police do not ticket bikers for running red lights on empty streets. If you would like to come to Philadelphia and run an experiment running red lights in front of cops so you can establish some empirical evidence on the matter, be my guest.

That said, if you're certain they don't do it, then what danger is there of losing? Or is it possible that, like I said, you don't actually know?

I do know.

Well, that depends on where you're walking. Are you talking about a path? Because generally those are slated for walking and cycling? Or are you talking about the sidewalk? Because that's not pavement.

I'm talking about a pavement, where pedestrians walk and cyclists are not permitted to cycle on, at least in England.

I dont think Ive ridden a bike since I got a Driver's License...

I can say one thing about guys who cycle...niiiiiiiiiiiiice asses.

What are you talking about? I said that the police do not care if I run a red light on my bike. The only police who have jurisdiction over ME in this instance are the Philadelphia police, and they don't care.

You amuse me. Seriously. So you were talking on international forum. And what you were trying to say is that the only relevant person to whether or not they care is you. I see.

I stand by that claim and like I said twice already, it's impossible for me to prove that claim.

Frankly, if they don't care in Philidelphia, it would most certainly have been handed down. As I said, if not, then it's discretionary. That means you've just not been ticketed YET.


Your insistence on this point demonstrates a level of pettiness and triviality that I was not expecting coming into this thread. Correct, I have nothing but anecdotal evidence, as I explained to you. Nevertheless, the police do not ticket bikers for running red lights on empty streets. If you would like to come to Philadelphia and run an experiment running red lights in front of cops so you can establish some empirical evidence on the matter, be my guest.

Right, so we've established that you don't actually know. I pointed out it is illegal. You could have just left it, but your reply was that the cops don't care that it's illegal.


I do know.

You know, then you can prove it. You've already demonstrated that you don't have any actual evidence. Again, all you've shown is that you've seen the police use their discretion not to give a ticket. They ALWAYS have that discretion. You've not shown they don't care. My mother has never gotten a speeding ticket. Does that mean the police don't care if she speeds?

I can say one thing about guys who cycle...niiiiiiiiiiiiice asses.

Thanks. Although, I don't think I'm that nice. ;-)

I'm talking about a pavement, where pedestrians walk and cyclists are not permitted to cycle on, at least in England.

Oh, crap, I just realized that the term paved isn't as limited as I thought. Sorry, just looking for clarification because I thought maybe you were talking about those loops that people use that are also designated for cycling.

Your sidewalks are paved?

A lot are, yes. Why?

I can say one thing about guys who cycle...niiiiiiiiiiiiice asses.

That's the only reason I haven't taken militant action against men who wear spandex whilst cycling.

A lot are, yes. Why?

You guys have Sidewalks? :confused:

You guys have Sidewalks? :confused:

No, because we don't have roads either. We are yet to invent the wheel, and instead ride on the backs of mammoths.

A lot are, yes. Why?

Did you see I edited that.

Thanks. Although, I don't think I'm that nice. ;-)
Lame :P
That's the only reason I haven't taken militant action against men who wear spandex whilst cycling.
No, it's still okay to be against spandex.

cant ride a bike due to no real balance or co-ordination, but if i could i would go around on a penny farthing

No, because we don't have roads either. We are yet to invent the wheel, and instead ride on the backs of mammoths.

lol, I had a thought for a story once where Dinosaurs survived and rode Bronto's like Cavalry, and Humans tried to fight them off on the backs of Mammoths, lol...


Yeah, most of our roads dont have sidewalks, pain in the ass when come across the biker that holds traffic up, :rolleyes:

You amuse me. Seriously. So you were talking on international forum. And what you were trying to say is that the only relevant person to whether or not they care is you. I see. That's what I said. Sorry if you misread what I typed.



Frankly, if they don't care in Philidelphia, it would most certainly have been handed down. As I said, if not, then it's discretionary. That means you've just not been ticketed YET.And I never will be.




Right, so we've established that you don't actually know. I pointed out it is illegal. You could have just left it, but your reply was that the cops don't care that it's illegal. Correct.




You know, then you can prove it. You've already demonstrated that you don't have any actual evidence. Again, all you've shown is that you've seen the police use their discretion not to give a ticket. They ALWAYS have that discretion.Correct. Likewise, I cannot prove that Zyrtec will not kill you if you take it even if I have empirical evidence to support my claim.
You've not shown they don't care.Correct, nor do I intend to.
My mother has never gotten a speeding ticket. Does that mean the police don't care if she speeds?

If I saw your mother regularly doing 90 in a 25 zone with different police watching her, I would say yes. I apply the same standard of evidentiary support to the claims I've made in this thread. If that bothers you, then I'm sorry.

I'm usually a bus rider. Hauling my bike down is a huge pain in the ass (I live on the fourth floor of a building that doesn't have an elevator). When I do ride my bike though I'm usually wearing a t-shirt with jeans tucked into my socks and have a backpack on (plus a helmet).

WTF is wrong with your poll! 1) you put a segway on a poll about bikes - a segway is not a bike. 2) you are either a old commuter guy, lance armstrong or a hipster kid.

Do you work for the auto industry --

And where the hell is the BMX option. I have a bmx and I'm not a hipster kid. A normal poll would look like this:

What kind of bike do you ride.

MTB
BMX
Cruiser
Racing
Other

WTF is wrong with your poll! 1) you put a segway on a poll about bikes - a segway is not a bike. 2) you are either a old commuter guy, lance armstrong or a hipster kid.

Do you work for the auto industry --

And where the hell is the BMX option. I have a bmx and I'm not a hipster kid. A normal poll would look like this:

What kind of bike do you ride.

MTB
BMX
Cruiser
Racing
Other

hah, the segway option was supposed to be a joke. But sorry I didn't put MTB or BMX up there.

That's what I said. Sorry if you misread what I typed.

Uh-huh. You're right. Reading things in context is just silly. Context has nothing to do with reading comprehension. See, there where I typed "you're right" that could refer to something you said this morning to your grocier. I mean, it's not like examing in the context in which it was written would tell you what it means.

And I never will be.

I love this assertion, because it's completely baseless.


Correct.

I'm glad you agree that you don't actually know. That was what you protested initially.


Correct. Likewise, I cannot prove that Zyrtec will not kill you if you take it even if I have empirical evidence to support my claim.

Which is not the case here. Here you have no evidence for your claim.


Correct, nor do I intend to.

Oh, you certainly tried. You failed, but you tried. In fact, you're now agree with my original assertion about what you said. You could have just done that initially and saved a lot of time.


If I saw your mother regularly doing 90 in a 25 zone with different police watching her, I would say yes. I apply the same standard of evidentiary support to the claims I've made in this thread. If that bothers you, then I'm sorry.

I love how you have to change it. She has to do 90 in a 25 in order for it to be speeding? I didn't realize. Can you tell me where the law is for that? Okay, then when you said cops are witnessing you jaywalking, you meant that you're standing in front of traffic daring them to hit you. Because that would be the equivalent of 90 in a 25.

See, because my mother most certainly speeds and has been for nearly 50 years. She's never had a ticket. Yes, it's reasonable to assume that at several points in her 50 years of commuting and occasionally driving around the country her regular speeding has been witnessed by a cop.

According to your rules of evidence, this means A. that she will never get a ticket for speeding and B. that the cops don't care that she does it. Thanks for playing.

Lame :P

No, it's still okay to be against spandex.

My ass looks GREAT in spandex.

Don't have a bike atm. If I am to get one, I'll be the one that everyone hates, that slows down the traffic and elbows drivers in the face as they drive past. Then I'll whine about how they're the annoying ones. It will be awesome.
You should ride on the left side of the road, too (or the right, if you're English). A bike lane means that's okay.

Uh-huh. You're right. Reading things in context is just silly. Context has nothing to do with reading comprehension. See, there where I typed "you're right" that could refer to something you said this morning to your grocier. I mean, it's not like examing in the context in which it was written would tell you what it means.I don't know how you came to that conclusion based on the context. Sorry.



I love this assertion, because it's completely baseless.It's not baseless, it's based on anecdotal evidence, like you said.




I'm glad you agree that you don't actually know. That was what you protested initially.I was referring to the bit about how I could have left it but didn't.




Which is not the case here. Here you have no evidence for your claim.I have anecdotal evidence.




Oh, you certainly tried. You failed, but you tried. In fact, you're now agree with my original assertion about what you said. You could have just done that initially and saved a lot of time.When did I try to do that? Why would I try to prove an event does not occur. That's impossible.




I love how you have to change it. She has to do 90 in a 25 in order for it to be speeding? I didn't realize.No, it could have been 50. I deliberately chose a high number so there would be no confusion. Can you tell me where the law is for that?Where the law is for what? Okay, then when you said cops are witnessing you jaywalking, you meant that you're standing in front of traffic daring them to hit you. Because that would be the equivalent of 90 in a 25. The severity has nothing to do with it. If they regularly saw me and others running reds and didn't do anything about it, I would conclude that they didn't care. If they regularly saw your mom doing 90 in a 25, I would conclude that they didn't care. Wouldn't you conclude that the cops didn't care if everyone was going around doing 90 in front of the cops in your city?

See, because my mother most certainly speeds and has been for nearly 50 years. She's never had a ticket. Yes, it's reasonable to assume that at several points in her 50 years of commuting and occasionally driving around the country her regular speeding has been witnessed by a cop.

According to your rules of evidence, this means A. that she will never get a ticket for speeding and B. that the cops don't care that she does it. Thanks for playing.

Not really. Maybe their radar guns didn't register, maybe they didn't notice, there's any number of very probable reasons for her to have broken the law and the police would have otherwise given her a ticket.

Please, keep trying.

I don't know how you came to that conclusion based on the context. Sorry.

Fortunately, the universe doesn't stop and start based on what you don't know.


It's not baseless, it's based on anecdotal evidence, like you said.

But the evidence doesn't lead one to the conclusion you're claim. You demonstrate as much later in this post.


I was referring to the bit about how I could have left it but didn't.

So you're still claiming you KNOW that the cops don't care? Amusing, to say the least.

I have anecdotal evidence.

Which doesn't lead to the conclusion you claim. You've actually shown as much later in this post.


When did I try to do that? Why would I try to prove an event does not occur. That's impossible.

You're not claiming only that it doesn't happen. You're claiming it never will. In order to claim never, you have to have proof.


No, it could have been 50. I deliberately chose a high number so there would be no confusion. Where the law is for what? The severity has nothing to do with it. If they regularly saw me and others running reds and didn't do anything about it, I would conclude that they didn't care. If they regularly saw your mom doing 90 in a 25, I would conclude that they didn't care. Wouldn't you conclude that the cops didn't care if everyone was going around doing 90 in front of the cops in your city?

There's confusion as to whether I'm talking about speeding? The cops don't know the speed limits? My mother doesn't do 90 in a 25 just like you and your friends don't sit in the middle of the street daring them to ticket you. My mother does sepeed. If traffic allows, she pretty much always speeds as did her mother till she quit driving.

Not really. Maybe their radar guns didn't register, maybe they didn't notice, there's any number of very probable reasons for her to have broken the law and the police would have otherwise given her a ticket.

Please, keep trying.
So, let's see in 50 years, the cops never noticed my mother was speeding for various reasons. Hmmmm.... interesting that you don't apply the same logic to your anecdotes. It's amusing that you regard my anecdotal evidence with the same level of skepticism as I do yours. It shows you're capable of being logical but just refuse to do so in regards to jaywalking and running reds on bikes.

Fortunately, the universe doesn't stop and start based on what you don't know.Very fortunate indeed.




But the evidence doesn't lead one to the conclusion you're claim. You demonstrate as much later in this post.Sure it does.




So you're still claiming you KNOW that the cops don't care? Amusing, to say the least.Amusing? More like incredibly trivial. Whatever floats your boat though.



Which doesn't lead to the conclusion you claim. You've actually shown as much later in this post.Sure it does.




You're not claiming only that it doesn't happen. You're claiming it never will. In order to claim never, you have to have proof.You keep acting as if there is some magical burden of proof incumbent upon me to prove to you that cops don't give tickets to bikers for running red lights on empty streets. I have concluded based on my experiences, those which I have witnessed, and those recounted by others that cops don't care. You're the one hellbent on proving that my conclusion has no basis. I have very plainly told you several times that my conclusion is based on anecdotal evidence, and I'm quite content with that.

You are correct that I cannot read the minds of the police, nor can I predict the future. Thank you captain obvious. Water is wet, the sky is blue, etc.




There's confusion as to whether I'm talking about speeding? The cops don't know the speed limits?Radar guns have a margin of error. Some cops don't care about mild infractions either. I deliberately chose something that all cops in the real world would care about. My mother doesn't do 90 in a 25 just like you and your friends don't sit in the middle of the street daring them to ticket you. Ok, and if I sat in the middle of the street daring them to ticket me repeatedly and none of them gave me any tickets, I would come to the conclusion that they didn't care if I did so. Why do you have trouble understanding this? My mother does sepeed. If traffic allows, she pretty much always speeds as did her mother till she quit driving.congrats


So, let's see in 50 years, the cops never noticed my mother was speeding for various reasons. Hmmmm.... interesting that you don't apply the same logic to your anecdotes. It's amusing that you regard my anecdotal evidence with the same level of skepticism as I do yours. It shows you're capable of being logical but just refuse to do so in regards to jaywalking and running reds on bikes.Not all anecdotal evidence is equal. As I already explained to you, there are plenty of very probable confounding factors which would lead to your mom not getting a ticket.


I ask you again, if you saw everyone in your city doing 90 in front of cops and none of them were ticketed, wouldn't you conclude that the cops didn't care that those people were doing 90?

I ask you again, if you saw everyone in your city doing 90 in front of cops and none of them were ticketed, wouldn't you conclude that the cops didn't care that those people were doing 90?

So you see "everyone in your city" standing in the middle of the street during red lights? Because that's the equivalent of what you're saying. You don't know it, but you're proving just how valueless your 'evidence' is. If that weren't true, you would have to change my anecdote, becuase we're talking about violating the law, not violating the law in some particularly egregious way. In fact, the example you gave was when there is no traffic, a particularly non-egregious example.

I walk to everywhere I go on a daily basis, since my classes are all close enough to where I live that I can do that, and drive when I need to go home for a weekend, because that's an hour drive and a bike wouldn't do, and neither would walking or public transport...

So you see "everyone in your city" standing in the middle of the street during red lights? Because that's the equivalent of what you're saying. You don't know it, but you're proving just how valueless your 'evidence' is. If that weren't true, you would have to change my anecdote, becuase we're talking about violating the law, not violating the law in some particularly egregious way. In fact, the example you gave was when there is no traffic, a particularly non-egregious example.

Jocabia: the man who got in an argument in a thread titled "Bicycles." :tongue:

Jocabia: the man who got in an argument in a thread titled "Bicycles." :tongue:

I can always find an argument. Arguing the big stuff got boring. There are no realy dragons to slay anymore. So I have fun killing feral cats.

So you see "everyone in your city" standing in the middle of the street during red lights? Because that's the equivalent of what you're saying. You don't know it, but you're proving just how valueless your 'evidence' is. If that weren't true, you would have to change my anecdote, becuase we're talking about violating the law, not violating the law in some particularly egregious way. In fact, the example you gave was when there is no traffic, a particularly non-egregious example.

Why would the level of egregiousness matter? I'm talking about the level of obviousness at which the event occurs. It is blatantly obvious when a biker runs a red and a cop is sitting right there watching. When someone is speeding, it is not always obvious that a cop is watching or even if he is, that he notices the speeding. All I'm trying to show you is that anecdotal evidence is valid evidence. Since you failed to answer my question twice, I can only assume you are admitting that you would draw that conclusion and you now agree that anecdotal evidence is sufficient in certain circumstances. I have deemed my experiences to be sufficient anecdotal evidence for me to draw the conclusions I have. As you would say, "thanks for playing."

Why would the level of egregiousness matter? I'm talking about the level of obviousness at which the event occurs. It is blatantly obvious when a biker runs a red and a cop is sitting right there watching. When someone is speeding, it is not always obvious that a cop is watching or even if he is, that he notices the speeding. All I'm trying to show you is that anecdotal evidence is valid evidence. Since you failed to answer my question twice, I can only assume you are admitting that you would draw that conclusion and you now agree that anecdotal evidence is sufficient in certain circumstances. I have deemed my experiences to be sufficient anecdotal evidence for me to draw the conclusions I have. As you would say, "thanks for playing."

Uh, actually, you're talking about two different offenses, first of all, that's why it matters. 90 in a 25 is wreckless endangerment, not just speeding. It's also blatantly obvious when someone goes 80 in a 65 or a 60. You don't have to be going 65 mph over the speed limit for it to be obvious. 25 over is a completely different violation for a reason. No one sees someone going 15 to 20 over and isn't sure if they're speeding.

You aren't showing that anecdotal evidence is valid. In fact, you're objecting to very similar anecdotal evidence. You seriously ignored 50 years of evidence because maybe they didn't see it.

I heard your question. It's disconnected from reality and we both know. Yes, if I witnessed every person in my city committing a traffic violation in front of the cops, I'd conclude the cops won't do anything about it.

I also realize you haven't seen everyone in your city doing it. You're just blatantly exaggerating now. You've PERHAPS had a couple of experiences. We can give you a little leeway here, but you can't expect us that you've seen hundreds of thousands of examples of people crossing in front of cops while the light was red. In fact, I go so far to say you're lying if you say you've seen even a half dozen seperate examples of people crossing on red before cops.

I can always find an argument. Arguing the big stuff got boring. There are no realy dragons to slay anymore. So I have fun killing feral cats.

I don't know how to feel. On one hand, that was a fairly good analogy, and I have to respect you for that. On the other, you just said you like "killing feral cats." That's incredibly sick. I'm conflicted.

Uh, actually, you're talking about two different offenses, first of all, that's why it matters. 90 in a 25 is wreckless endangerment, not just speeding. It's also blatantly obvious when someone goes 80 in a 65 or a 60. You don't have to be going 65 mph over the speed limit for it to be obvious. 25 over is a completely different violation for a reason. No one sees someone going 15 to 20 over and isn't sure if they're speeding.

You aren't showing that anecdotal evidence is valid. In fact, you're objecting to very similar anecdotal evidence. You seriously ignored 50 years of evidence because maybe they didn't see it.

I heard your question. It's disconnected from reality and we both know. Yes, if I witnessed every person in my city committing a traffic violation in front of the cops, I'd conclude the cops won't do anything about it.Contradicting yourself isn't going to make it any easier for you to prove your point. Since you've arbitrarily drawn a distinction between those crimes which are egregious and those which are not, when really only how obvious the crime being committed is relevant, I will play by your rules. Take any number of non-egregious crimes, smoking pot, public nudity, public urination, violation of noise ordinances, whatever is most appealing to you. If people were committing that crime regularly in front of cops and none of the cops did anything about it, wouldn't you conclude that the cops didn't care? Anecdotal evidence triumphs again.

I also realize you haven't seen everyone in your city doing it. You're just blatantly exaggerating now. You've PERHAPS had a couple of experiences. We can give you a little leeway here, but you can't expect us that you've seen hundreds of thousands of examples of people crossing in front of cops while the light was red. In fact, I go so far to say you're lying if you say you've seen even a half dozen seperate examples of people crossing on red before cops.

How could you possibly know what I have and have not witnessed? For someone so concerned with the trivialities of evidence and proof, I am shocked to see you committing such flagrant hypocrisy. SHOCKED I TELL YOU!!!!!!@!!!!11

Bike are vehicles and they belong on the road. That's where vehicles go. No one wants me riding 40 miles an hour on the sidewalk. It puts me in danger and it puts the people on the sidewalk in danger. If your city sucks too much to make bike lanes, then complain to the city. However, until that happens, I'll be, rightfully, right there on the road where I belong.

And when youre on a 60 mph road biking along at 30 mph, I will pass you and flip you off as I do so.

And when youre on a 60 mph road biking along at 30 mph, I will pass you and flip you off as I do so.

Most 60 mph roads have a shoulder for the biker to ride in or multiple lanes for you to pass them easily. Why all the hate?

Most 60 mph roads have a shoulder for the biker to ride in or multiple lanes for you to pass them easily. Why all the hate?

Not where I live, thats why...

Most 60 mph roads have a shoulder for the biker to ride in or multiple lanes for you to pass them easily. Why all the hate?

Because of idiot bikers who dont use the shoulder. And I do pass them.

It doesnt mean that you should do 30 on a 60. Thats dangerous. For everyone.

Contradicting yourself isn't going to make it any easier for you to prove your point. Since you've arbitrarily drawn a distinction between those crimes which are egregious and those which are not, when really only how obvious the crime being committed is relevant, I will play by your rules. Take any number of non-egregious crimes, smoking pot, public nudity, public urination, violation of noise ordinances, whatever is most appealing to you. If people were committing that crime regularly in front of cops and none of the cops did anything about it, wouldn't you conclude that the cops didn't care? Anecdotal evidence triumphs again.

Uh, not arbitrarily. Don't use words you don't understand. I've drawn a line between speeding and wreckless endangerment, since my mother is guilty of the former and not the latter. I've also forced you to stay consistent to the analogy. That's also not arbitrary. You know it isn't arbitrary which is why you need to make it more egregious. Because absent pretending like going 90 in a 25 is equivalent to running a red light on a bicycle when no traffic is present, you have to admit that my analogy works and that you won't accept it as evidence destroys your argument.

My mother has committed that crime regularly in front of cops. She's a rampant speeder and the cops hav regularly don't do anything about it. You rejected this evidence. Apparently, you don't actually accept anecdotal evidence unless it's bullshit evidence you've continually extended until it's ludicrous.

Your anecdotal evidence doesn't draw the conclusion you claim. You're aware of it, which is why the evidence keeps getting extended. It started out with a couple examples, and now you're claiming it's happening regularly and comparable to the entire city doing it. If your evidence was strong enough, you'd have let it alone, but the fact you keep trying to pretend it's stronger than it is betrays your argument.



How could you possibly know what I have and have not witnessed? For someone so concerned with the trivialities of evidence and proof, I am shocked to see you committing such flagrant hypocrisy. SHOCKED I TELL YOU!!!!!!@!!!!11

You're right. I should believe that you've witnessed everyone in your city. Of course I should.

Because of idiot bikers who dont use the shoulder. And I do pass them.

It doesnt mean that you should do 30 on a 60. Thats dangerous. For everyone.
Bikers are required to follow the traffic laws. Most of the time people traveling on those roads are doing so. Flip them off as you pass them. I'm sure they'll cry all the way home. While you're at it, shout, "I'm rubber you're glue" and really teach them a lesson.

Uh, not arbitrarily. Don't use words you don't understand. I've drawn a line between speeding and wreckless endangerment, since my mother is guilty of the former and not the latter. I've also forced you to stay consistent to the analogy. That's also not arbitrary. You know it isn't arbitrary which is why you need to make it more egregious. Because absent pretending like going 90 in a 25 is equivalent to running a red light on a bicycle when no traffic is present, you have to admit that my analogy works and that you won't accept it as evidence destroys your argument.

My mother has committed that crime regularly in front of cops. She's a rampant speeder and the cops hav regularly don't do anything about it. You rejected this evidence. Apparently, you don't actually accept anecdotal evidence unless it's bullshit evidence you've continually extended until it's ludicrous.

Your anecdotal evidence doesn't draw the conclusion you claim. You're aware of it, which is why the evidence keeps getting extended. It started out with a couple examples, and now you're claiming it's happening regularly and comparable to the entire city doing it. If your evidence was strong enough, you'd have let it alone, but the fact you keep trying to pretend it's stronger than it is betrays your argument.I already explained to you the confounding factors present in your analogy. The fact that you have not accepted several analogies I provided which more accurately portray the original concept we began with, do not have any confounding factors, and fall within your level of egregiousness limits, perfectly demonstrates your inconsistency on the acceptability of anecdotal evidence. How you came to the conclusion of "a couple examples," I have no idea. I will concede the "everyone in the city doing it." Again, take any number of non-egregious crimes, smoking pot, public nudity, public urination, violation of noise ordinances, whatever is most appealing to you. If people were committing that crime regularly in front of cops and none of the cops did anything about it, wouldn't you conclude that the cops didn't care? Anecdotal evidence triumphs again.





You're right. I should believe that you've witnessed everyone in your city. Of course I should.
I never said that. Keep trying.

I already explained to you the confounding factors present in your analogy. The fact that you have not accepted several analogies I provided which more accurately portray the original concept we began with, do not have any confounding factors, and fall within your level of egregiousness limits, perfectly demonstrates your inconsistency on the acceptability of anecdotal evidence. How you came to the conclusion of "a couple examples," I have no idea. I will concede the "everyone in the city doing it." Again, take any number of non-egregious crimes, smoking pot, public nudity, public urination, violation of noise ordinances, whatever is most appealing to you. If people were committing that crime regularly in front of cops and none of the cops did anything about it, wouldn't you conclude that the cops didn't care? Anecdotal evidence triumphs again.

Right, the same confounding factors you ignore in your anecdote. You demonstrated my point. It's not my fault you're unable to see the same problames in your anecdote.

You amuse me that you keep saying that anecdotal evidence triumphs while refusing to accept it. What you mean to say is, anecdotal evidence triumphs provided I can change my claim, my argument and cherrypick and/or completely make up evidence as I like. And you're right, provided you get to do all of those illogical things, anecdotal evidence does actually support your conclusion.

I never said that. Keep trying.

You didn't? Then why did you just concede it. Obviously, you've been trying to present your evidence as stronger than it is. It went from a couple examples to people doing it all the time. It's a tacit admission of the weakness of your true anecdotes.

Right, the same confounding factors you ignore in your anecdote. You demonstrated my point. It's not my fault you're unable to see the same problames in your anecdote.

You amuse me that you keep saying that anecdotal evidence triumphs while refusing to accept it. They are not the same problems. I already explained this to you, go back and reread it if you want.



You didn't? Then why did you just concede it. Obviously, you've been trying to present your evidence as stronger than it is. It went from a couple examples to people doing it all the time. It's a tacit admission of the weakness of your true anecdotes.

Again, I never said "a couple of examples." Please link me to this nonexistent post I made.

How did I present my evidence as stronger than it is? You've yet to provide any evidence of this at all, only pure speculation. Hell, you didn't even provide anecdotal evidence. Surely you would want to adhere to your own standards?

I conceded the "everyone in the city" part of my original analogy because you staunchly refused to accept it as possible. You did, however, concede that if it were possible, you would accept it, anecdotal evidence it may be, as valid evidence. So we've determined that there is some critical mass at which you would accept anecdotal evidence as valid evidence, but you have twice flatly refused to give any indication as to what that might be. So I again repeat, take any number of non-egregious crimes, smoking pot, public nudity, public urination, violation of noise ordinances, whatever is most appealing to you. If people were committing that crime regularly in front of cops and none of the cops did anything about it, wouldn't you conclude that the cops didn't care? Anecdotal evidence triumphs again.

This is a such a douchey conversation, my vag feels clean as a spring breeze.

They are not the same problems. I already explained this to you, go back and reread it if you want.

Yes, for 50 years, the cops never noticed my mother speeding. Of course they didn't.


Again, I never said "a couple of examples." Please link me to this nonexistent post I made.

You gave a couple of examples. You didn't say they were a couple of examples. It was a couple examples of you and friends crossing the street against the light. Then it became that they were regularly doing it in front of cops. It's just plain out bullshit and both of us know it. Seriously, you expect any reasonable person to believe this is happening among people you've asked all the time. "Hey, Jimmy, I crossed the street illegally in front of a cop again." Yes, you have tons of examples. It's probably all you and your friends do and talk about. Of course. That's totally believable.


How did I present my evidence as stronger than it is? You've yet to provide any evidence of this at all, only pure speculation. Hell, you didn't even provide anecdotal evidence. Surely you would want to adhere to your own standards?

I conceded the "everyone in the city" part of my original analogy because you staunchly refused to accept it as possible. You did, however, concede that if it were possible, you would accept it, anecdotal evidence it may be, as valid evidence. So we've determined that there is some critical mass at which you would accept anecdotal evidence as valid evidence, but you have twice flatly refused to give any indication as to what that might be. So I again repeat, take any number of non-egregious crimes, smoking pot, public nudity, public urination, violation of noise ordinances, whatever is most appealing to you. If people were committing that crime regularly in front of cops and none of the cops did anything about it, wouldn't you conclude that the cops didn't care?

You conceded it because it was a bullshit claim. You don't have the first bit of knowledge about "everyone in the city". You have a couple of friends who may or may not have done so and may or may not have told you about it on occasion.

And we haven't established that there is some critical mass at which I'd accept anecdotal evidence. I would accept it if I witnessed it, but it's an irrelevant theoretical since there's no chance I'm ever going to witness everyone in the city running lights in front of cops.

THE Anecdotal evidence THAT I CHERRYPICK OR MAKE UP WHOLESALE triumphs again PROVIDED TRIUMPHS MEANS THAT IT CONVINCES NO ONE AND MAKES IT OBVIOUS I'M FULL OF SHIT.

Fixed

This is a such a douchey conversation, my vag feels clean as a spring breeze.

Hey, I'm not the anal retent who brought this up, but I try not to back down from a challenge (as trivial as it may be).

Well, I've run reds and jaywalked in front of police cars, I've seen other people do it, and I've heard from friends that they do it. So................ I think I'll be just fine.

This would be a couple of examples. Even this is likely bullshit, but even if it's not, it's not very strong evidence. This became that everyone in your city is regularly doing it with no consequence. And, of course, you know because everyone that meets you just happens to tell you anecdotes about lawbreaking in front of cops. Totally likely.

Hey, I'm not the anal retent who brought this up, but I try not to back down from a challenge (as trivial as it may be).

Yeah, cuz that's not anal retentive at all.

Hey, I'm not the anal retent who brought this up, but I try not to back down from a challenge (as trivial as it may be).

You might want to watch the flames there, bud. Don't get angry, just make an argument. It's not my fault you're struggling to find a way to dismiss anecdotal evidence while pretending that similar anecdotal evidence is valuable.

Yeah, cuz that's not anal retentive at all.

You so want to blow me.

Yes, for 50 years, the cops never noticed my mother speeding. Of course they didn't. I have no way of knowing what confounding factors were or were not at play. Sorry.




You gave a couple of examples. You didn't say they were a couple of examples. It was a couple examples of you and friends crossing the street against the light."couple of examples" that I supposedly provided, please link me to this (or these two?) nonexistent posts. Then it became that they were regularly doing it in front of cops. It's just plain out bullshit and both of us know it. Seriously, you expect any reasonable person to believe this is happening among people you've asked all the time. "Hey, Jimmy, I crossed the street illegally in front of a cop again." Yes, you have tons of examples. It's probably all you and your friends do and talk about. Of course. That's totally believable. Actually, I have a few friends who ride bikes and I've talked to them about which traffic laws are enforced. I'm also taking a class in which we are reading Jane Jacobs and we're discussing city planning and how people interact with cities. Both the topic of jaywalking and bikers not obeying traffic laws came up. As I have said, I regularly run red lights on my bike and jaywalk in front of cops. I've also witnessed others doing the same. I've witnessed jaywalking in front of cops much more often, obviously, as there are more pedestrians than bikers. You're only making yourself look like a fool here.




You conceded it because it was a bullshit claim. You don't have the first bit of knowledge about "everyone in the city". You have a couple of friends who may or may not have done so and may or may not have told you about it on occasion.

And we haven't established that there is some critical mass at which I'd accept anecdotal evidence. I would accept it if I witnessed it, but it's an irrelevant theoretical since there's no chance I'm ever going to witness everyone in the city running lights in front of cops.

Of course I don't have first hand knowledge of "everyone in the city," I'm just taking your argument to it's logical conclusion. All I'm trying to demonstrate to you is that there is some critical mass at which you would accept anecdotal evidence as valid evidence, but you have thrice flatly refused to give any indication as to what that might be. So I again repeat, take any number of non-egregious crimes, smoking pot, public nudity, public urination, violation of noise ordinances, whatever is most appealing to you. If people were committing that crime regularly in front of cops and none of the cops did anything about it, wouldn't you conclude that the cops didn't care?

Fixed
Keep trying.

Yeah, cuz that's not anal retentive at all.

No, see, I'm the OTHER anal retent, the one which didn't start the argument.

Oh, look, there he goes again, extending his evidence. Not so amusingly, the evidence gets extended again. If your original anecdotal evidence was so strong why the need to keep adding to it? I mean, we both know you're making it up, but that's not even necessary to acknowledge in order to address how silly this is. The fact you keep extending it is evidence that even you don't believe you. As for the link, I already provided it. You should pay more attention.

No, see, I'm the OTHER anal retent, the one which didn't start the argument.
You've still failed to answer the question. Should I conclude that if my mother has sped her whole life, she has, and never been ticketed, she hasn't, that she will never be ticketed?

This would be a couple of examples. Even this is likely bullshit, but even if it's not, it's not very strong evidence. This became that everyone in your city is regularly doing it with no consequence. And, of course, you know because everyone that meets you just happens to tell you anecdotes about lawbreaking in front of cops. Totally likely."everyone that meets you" now you're not even trying. Please link me to the post where I said this.

You might want to watch the flames there, bud. Don't get angry, just make an argument. It's not my fault you're struggling to find a way to dismiss anecdotal evidence while pretending that similar anecdotal evidence is valuable.I already explained to you, there are too many very probable confounding factors for me to accept your anecdotal evidence. I'm sorry you can't accept that.

Oh, look, there he goes again, extending his evidence. Not so amusingly, the evidence gets extended again. If your original anecdotal evidence was so strong why the need to keep adding to it? I mean, we both know you're making it up, but that's not even necessary to acknowledge in order to address how silly this is. The fact you keep extending it is evidence that even you don't believe you. As for the link, I already provided it. You should pay more attention.Extending my anecdotal evidence? What in God's name are you talking about? As for the link, I never specified "a couple." I used a plural (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=dictionary&q=plural). A plural indicates 2 or more.

You've still failed to answer the question. Should I conclude that if my mother has sped her whole life, she has, and never been ticketed, she hasn't, that she will never be ticketed?I already explained this to you about four times now.

"everyone that meets you" now you're not even trying. Please link me to the post where I said this.
No, you actually didn't make that exception. You actually said "everyone in the city". Something you said you only conceded because I didn't believe you.

I already explained to you, there are too many very probable confounding factors for me to accept your anecdotal evidence. I'm sorry you can't accept that.

You crack me up. So in 50 years, no cops have witnessed her speeding. 50 years? Seriously. But, of course, when you and your friends cross the street, the cops regularly see it. Yup, totally likely.

Extending my anecdotal evidence? What in God's name are you talking about? As for the link, I never specified "a couple." I used a plural (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=dictionary&q=plural). A plural indicates 2 or more.

I already explained this to you about four times now.

Originally you just said it had happened. Then it happens regularly. Then you mentioned everyone in the city, which you dropped when I started laughing at you. Then you had a class that supports your evidence. You keep adding in stuff because you know your evidence isn't as strong as you're pretending.

This is a such a douchey conversation, my vag feels clean as a spring breeze.

It smells so fresh, which is odd given how many people have visited it in the last 24 hours.

Disclaimer: I'm being sarcastic. She knows it. I'm not flaming her. Isn't it sad that jokes require disclaimers so we don't get red cards?

No, you actually didn't make that exception. You actually said "everyone in the city". Something you said you only conceded because I didn't believe you.As I explained already, of course I don't have first hand knowledge of "everyone in the city," I'm just taking your argument to it's logical conclusion. All I'm trying to demonstrate to you is that there is some critical mass at which you would accept anecdotal evidence as valid evidence, but you have, four times, flatly refused to give any indication as to what that might be. So I again repeat, take any number of non-egregious crimes, smoking pot, public nudity, public urination, violation of noise ordinances, whatever is most appealing to you. If people were committing that crime regularly in front of cops and none of the cops did anything about it, wouldn't you conclude that the cops didn't care?



You crack me up. So in 50 years, no cops have witnessed her speeding. 50 years? Seriously. But, of course, when you and your friends cross the street, the cops regularly see it. Yup, totally likely.
I already explained to you, there are too many very probable confounding factors for me to accept your anecdotal evidence. I'm sorry you can't accept that.


Originally you just said it had happened. Then it happens regularly. Then you mentioned everyone in the city, which you dropped when I started laughing at you. Then you had a class that supports your evidence. You keep adding in stuff because you know your evidence isn't as strong as you're pretending.

I never specified "a couple." I used a plural. A plural indicates 2 or more.

As for the stuff I keep adding, it's all true. I'm sorry I did not have a camera or other recording device with me in class to record the conversation. I don't know what to tell you. Here's the syllabus, I edited a few things out, but this is the best I can do for you. If you think I'm just lying to you, then I honestly think your just being paranoid. http://rapidshare.com/files/223434031/syllabus.doc.html

As I explained already, of course I don't have first hand knowledge of "everyone in the city," I'm just taking your argument to it's logical conclusion. All I'm trying to demonstrate to you is that there is some critical mass at which you would accept anecdotal evidence as valid evidence, but you have, four times, flatly refused to give any indication as to what that might be. So I again repeat, take any number of non-egregious crimes, smoking pot, public nudity, public urination, violation of noise ordinances, whatever is most appealing to you. If people were committing that crime regularly in front of cops and none of the cops did anything about it, wouldn't you conclude that the cops didn't care?

I already explained to you, there are too many very probable confounding factors for me to accept your anecdotal evidence. I'm sorry you can't accept that.

I never specified "a couple." I used a plural. A plural indicates 2 or more.

As for the stuff I keep adding, it's all true. I'm sorry I did not have a camera or other recording device with me in class to record the conversation. I don't know what to tell you. Here's the syllabus, I edited a few things out, but this is the best I can do for you. If you think I'm just lying to you, then I honestly think your just being paranoid. http://rapidshare.com/files/223434031/syllabus.doc.html

Well, we can keeping circling this drain all day. I've adequately demonstrated that you recognize that your evidence isn't strong at all, both by getting you constantly change it and by getting you to refuse to accept 50 years of similar evidence. You're not even trying to further clarify your position anymore. Why? We both know as does anyone who reads this.

But, hey, yes, let's just leave it at you've fooled us. Yes, you have loads of evidence that the cops don't care about the moving violations by bicycles. Yup. And any comparable scenario involving other people is unacceptable because, well, it's not you. Great argument. Totally convincing.

Well, we can keeping circling this drain all day. I've adequately demonstrated that you recognize that your evidence isn't strong at all, both by getting you constantly change it and by getting you to refuse to accept 50 years of similar evidence. You're not even trying to further clarify your position anymore. Why? We both know as does anyone who reads this.I haven't changed my evidence at all. You asked for more, I did my best to provide you with more. There is nothing more I could conceivably do to provide more proof that I am not lying. And your evidence is not similar, for the reasons which I have already explained. I know I'm right, because I was there. You refuse to accept that I'm right. And I doubt anybody else is reading this.

But, hey, yes, let's just leave it at you've fooled us. Yes, you have loads of evidence that the cops don't care about the moving violations by bicycles. Yup. And any comparable scenario involving other people is unacceptable because, well, it's not you. Great argument. Totally convincing.

Again, I have not lied to you once about my personal experiences. If you believe that, then I truly feel bad for you. And as I've said from the very beginning I never set out to prove to you that cops don't care about bikes running red lights at empty intersections. That's a conclusion I drew from my personal experiences. If you can't accept that, then that's too bad.

http://youlose.ytmnd.com/
http://reallylose.ytmnd.com/

I haven't changed my evidence at all. You asked for more, I did my best to provide you with more. There is nothing more I could conceivably do to provide more proof that I am not lying. And your evidence is not similar, for the reasons which I have already explained. I know I'm right, because I was there. You refuse to accept that I'm right. And I doubt anybody else is reading this.



Again, I have not lied to you once about my personal experiences. If you believe that, then I truly feel bad for you. And as I've said from the very beginning I never set out to prove to you that cops don't care about bikes running red lights at empty intersections. That's a conclusion I drew from my personal experiences. If you can't accept that, then that's too bad.

http://youlose.ytmnd.com/
http://reallylose.ytmnd.com/

Well, hey, you have links that have nothing to do with the argument. That's almost like evidence. People with strong evidence always end with those kinds of links. Of course they do. I mean, it's not like you'd want to just let your very strong argument stand for itself or anything.

You're right. See, obviously people ARE regularly telling you about their moving violations on bicycles in front of cops. Obviously, you're regularly witnessing it along with cops. Of course that's happening. Like I said, totally believable. That doesn't sound like a bullshit internet claim at all. And you're dating a model and your cock is 15 inches long and you once beat Mike Tyson in a street fight.

And of course there are problems with anecdotal evidence. You've adequately demonstrated that. You're right the cops may not have seen it. They may have been distracted. They may have had somewhere else to go or something else to do. There may have been dozens of reasons other than not caring that would cause them not issue a violation. And all of those things apply equally to your anecdotes and mine, whether you admit it or not. Now, of course, mine span 50 years, making that less likely. But, hey, don't let logic get in your way all of the sudden. It hasn't even slowed down your trainwreck of an argument thus far.

It smells so fresh, which is odd given how many people have visited it in the last 24 hours. I wish that were true, but I exercised restraint. Sadly, restraint is not very satisfying.

Disclaimer: I'm being sarcastic. She knows it. I'm not flaming her. Isn't it sad that jokes require disclaimers so we don't get red cards?
Quit being a Flamey Mcflamey pants!

I wish that were true, but I exercised restraint. Sadly, restraint is not very satisfying.

Quit being a Flamey Mcflamey pants!

You so wished I lived closer. I'd have to be within eight inches to be of any help at all.

You so wished I lived closer. I'd have to be within eight inches to be of any help at all.
Pfffft, your big feet aren't a good way to measure. More like 3cm. And yeah, I wish all you bitches lived closer. So I could stuff a ball gag in your mouth and smack your ass with a riding crop.

Well, hey, you have links that have nothing to do with the argument. That's almost like evidence. People with strong evidence always end with those kinds of links. Of course they do. I mean, it's not like you'd want to just let your very strong argument stand for itself or anything.Hey, you're the one who unceremoniously declared victory at the end of one of your posts. I'm sorry I'm capable of doing the exact same thing while using humor.

You're right. See, obviously people ARE regularly telling you about their moving violations on bicycles in front of cops. Obviously, you're regularly witnessing it along with cops. Of course that's happening. Like I said, totally believable. That doesn't sound like a bullshit internet claim at all. And you're dating a model and your cock is 15 inches long and you once beat Mike Tyson in a street fight. Keep telling yourself that I'm lying. I'm sure it will come true.

And of course there are problems with anecdotal evidence. You've adequately demonstrated that. You're right the cops may not have seen it. They may have been distracted. They may have had somewhere else to go or something else to do. There may have been dozens of reasons other than not caring that would cause them not issue a violation. And all of those things apply equally to your anecdotes and mine, whether you admit it or not. Now, of course, mine span 50 years, making that less likely. But, hey, don't let logic get in your way all of the sudden. It hasn't even slowed down your trainwreck of an argument thus far.

I'll be sure to set up an experiment by running red lights in front of cops. I'll record the whole thing and set up confidence intervals. I'll send the evidence and the write-up to be peer reviewed by the prestigious Journal of Trivial Bullshit. I'm sure they'll be excited to publish my work. Just as excited as you are at the prospect of refuting my claims about my personal experiences even though you've never met me.

Pfffft, your big feet aren't a good way to measure. More like 3cm. And yeah, I wish all you bitches lived closer. So I could stuff a ball gag in your mouth and smack your ass with a riding crop.

Oh, you're one of those just the tip types, huh?

And, again, I could totally take you in a street fight, of course.

We better let the thread die. I've been defeated. You can tell because he posted links that say so.

:D

Oh, you're one of those just the tip types, huh?

And, again, I could totally take you in a street fight, of course.

We better let the thread die. I've been defeated. You can tell because he posted links that say so.

:D

Frothing at the mouth with hypocrisy. Excellent!

Oh, you're one of those just the tip types, huh?
I don't even know what that means.
And, again, I could totally take you in a street fight, of course. Oooh! Good story...Friday night I punched a guy out and broke his nose, toppled a bar stool onto him, and then got taken out the back by the bouncers before I could kick him while he was down.

He was very lippy.


We better let the thread die. I've been defeated. You can tell because he posted links that say so. You are so annoying, I can understand how it drives people insane.

Hey, you're the one who unceremoniously declared victory at the end of one of your posts. I'm sorry I'm capable of doing the exact same thing while using humor.

Yes, summarizing the argument, exposing it's flaws and pointing out that it's a L for you is exactly the same as posting a link. Yup.

Keep telling yourself that I'm lying. I'm sure it will come true.

No, of course you're not. You've got loads of examples. It's totally plausable, just like the other examples I gave. Keep banging that supermodel with your 15-inch penis.

I'll be sure to set up an experiment by running red lights in front of cops. I'll record the whole thing and set up confidence intervals. I'll send the evidence and the write-up to be peer reviewed by the prestigious Journal of Trivial Bullshit. I'm sure they'll be excited to publish my work. Just as excited as you are at the prospect of refuting my claims about my personal experiences even though you've never met me.

You presented your personal experiences as evidence. Forgive me for recognizing internet bullshit by the smell. It's clearly offended you.

I don't even know what that means.

"No, no, we can't have sex.... okay, just the tip, though, okay?"


Oooh! Good story...Friday night I punched a guy out and broke his nose, toppled a bar stool onto him, and then got taken out the back by the bouncers before I could kick him while he was down.

Poor little guy. It must have been hard for him to get back in his wheelchair afterward.

You are so annoying, I can understand how it drives people insane.
Hehe. Sarcasm is awesome. It's driven you insame more than twice.

Yes, summarizing the argument, exposing it's flaws and pointing out that it's a L for you is exactly the same as posting a link. Yup.Ummmmmmmmmmm.... I summarized your argument, exposed its flaws and pointed out that it's a big L for you by posting the link.



No, of course you're not. You've got loads of examples. It's totally plausable, just like the other examples I gave. Keep banging that supermodel with your 15-inch penis. I do have loads of examples. Sorry.



You presented your personal experiences as evidence. Forgive me for recognizing internet bullshit by the smell. It's clearly offended you.
Again as I've said from the very beginning I never set out to prove to you that cops don't care about bikes running red lights at empty intersections. That's a conclusion I drew from my personal experiences. If you can't accept that, then that's too bad.

You say black I say white
You say bark I say bite
You say shark I say hey man
Jaws was never my scene
And I don't like Star Wars
You say Rolls I say Royce
You say God give me a choice
You say Lord I say Christ
I don't believe in Peter Pan
Frankenstein or Superman
All I wanna do is

Bicycle bicycle bicycle
I want to ride my bicycle bicycle bicycle
I want to ride my bicycle
I want to ride my bike
I want to ride my bicycle

"No, no, we can't have sex.... okay, just the tip, though, okay?"
*stares*

Does that in any way, shape, or form, sound like me?


Poor little guy. It must have been hard for him to get back in his wheelchair afterward. Hahahahaha, it's okay, once he got his little green top hat back on and smoothed his little red beard, he was fine.


Hehe. Sarcasm is awesome. It's driven you insame more than twice.Which is why I don't speak to you anymore.

...

Ummmmmmmmmmm.... I summarized your argument, exposed its flaws and pointed out that it's a big L for you by posting the link.

Hehe. Well, at least, you're honestly summarizing your ability to make an adequate argument. If you've no faith in your ability to argue, why should anyone else, frankly?

And, yes, of course you do have loads of examples. *pats head* You totally do. I mean, why would anyone doubt that people are just coming up to you handing you these examples so you'd have adequate evidence to make the claims you have. Of course, they have. Really, there's no other likely explanation. Certainly that you're full of shit isn't possible. Anyone who might consider an unlikely internet claim to be a lie is "sad", right?

*stares*

Does that in any way, shape, or form, sound like me?

Hahahahaha, it's okay, once he got his little green top hat back on and smoothed his little red beard, he was fine.

Which is why I don't speak to you anymore.

...

Then stop sending me nude pictures, too. I'm not going to sleep with you. Begging is not a turnon.

Hehe. Well, at least, you're honestly summarizing your ability to make an adequate argument. If you've no faith in your ability to argue, why should anyone else, frankly?

And, yes, of course you do have loads of examples. *pats head* You totally do. I mean, why would anyone doubt that people are just coming up to you handing you these examples so you'd have adequate evidence to make the claims you have. Of course, they have. Really, there's no other likely explanation. Certainly that you're full of shit isn't possible. Anyone who might consider an unlikely internet claim to be a lie is "sad", right?

Again, if you believe that, you certainly have a very paranoid outlook on things. I hope that doesn't extend to other areas of your life.

Then stop sending me nude pictures, too. I'm not going to sleep with you. Begging is not a turnon.

You so wish.

UMP's got plenty of my nude pics, you're not special dear. And you know damn well you'd be booking a flight in a second to come shag me if I ever actually showed interest :P

Also, if begging isn't a turn on for you, then you're not really my type.

Again, if you believe that, you certainly have a very paranoid outlook on things. I hope that doesn't extend to other areas of your life.

I continue to love that take on things. Yes, I'm paranoid. Obviously, the only explanation for not believing things that are wholly unlikely is not the fact they're not likely, but more because I'm paranoid. I hope your ability to screw your model girlfriend with your 15-inch penis is better than your ability to make an argument.

"No, I'm telling the truth, I swear. I just sit around and collect evidence because I just knew I'd have to make this internet argument someday. I have loads of evidence no matter how unlikely my argument sounds."

You so wish.

UMP's got plenty of my nude pics, you're not special dear. And you know damn well you'd be booking a flight in a second to come shag me if I ever actually showed interest :P

Also, if begging isn't a turn on for you, then you're not really my type.

Oh, Sin, we all know that if I showed up, you'd be naked before I could say Jimmy's full of crap. Come on, this thread only has time for one completely bullshit claim at a time.

I continue to love that take on things. Yes, I'm paranoid. Obviously, the only explanation for not believing things that are wholly unlikely is not the fact they're not likely, but more because I'm paranoid. I hope your ability to screw your model girlfriend with your 15-inch penis is better than your ability to make an argument.

"No, I'm telling the truth, I swear. I just sit around and collect evidence because I just knew I'd have to make this internet argument someday. I have loads of evidence no matter how unlikely my argument sounds."

I don't understand how you could feel that way. I really did not have some sinister plot to amass evidence for some future argument. This is just what I've noticed and experienced riding around the city, going to class, and talking with friends. I'm sorry you feel that way.

Oh, Sin, we all know that if I showed up, you'd be naked before I could say Jimmy's full of crap. Come on, this thread only has time for one completely bullshit claim at a time.

Oh Jocabia. While it's true the very last person I'd have sex with here is TAI, you are a close second, if only because I'd never hear the end of how good in bed you were supposedly were. Completely ignoring the fact that any oohing and ahhing on my part would be me trying to supress yawns.

Hmm.. if this keeps up I might just give Sin the money for a plane ticket so she can bash Jacobia. Been wondering what to do with my tax return...

Eidt: I bet I'm 3rd on that list!

Oh Jocabia. While it's true the very last person I'd have sex with here is TAI, you are a close second, if only because I'd never hear the end of how good in bed you were supposedly were. Completely ignoring the fact that any oohing and ahhing on my part would be me trying to supress yawns.

Yes, I'm sure that's what your biggest worry is. You'd be following me around like a lost kitten, declawed and pathetic. And that would be a sad end to the persona we know as Sin. That's why you don't want to have sex with me. And it's a valid reason. For once, you'll get no argument from me.

I don't understand how you could feel that way. I really did not have some sinister plot to amass evidence for some future argument. This is just what I've noticed and experienced riding around the city, going to class, and talking with friends. I'm sorry you feel that way.

Sure, Jimmy. *pats head again* I'm sorry I ever doubted you, son.

Yes, I'm sure that's what your biggest worry is. You'd be following me around like a lost kitten, declawed and pathetic. And that would be a sad end to the persona we know as Sin. That's why you don't want to have sex with me. And it's a valid reason. For once, you'll get no argument from me.

You forget that the biggest turn on for me is a man with intellect.

You can see why you've been striken off that list pretty much automatically :P

You forget that the biggest turn on for me is a man with intellect.

You can see why you've been striken off that list pretty much automatically :P

Well, I guess we're both happy then. Seriously, though, stop begging. I said no.

Sure, Jimmy. *pats head again* I'm sorry I ever doubted you, son.

Ha! I fooled you. I was lying all along. I've never ridden a bicycle in my life! All moving violations by cyclists in the city are punished with impunity. Police regularly run over cyclists, get out of their cars and beat them with their nightsticks just before shooting them to death. At first, I thought you were catching on to my clever little ruse, but no, VICTORY IS MINE.

Is that what you wanted to hear? Do you feel vindicated now?

Well, I guess we're both happy then. Seriously, though, stop begging. I said no.

:D

Night, Jocabia.

Ha! I fooled you. I was lying all along. I've never ridden a bicycle in my life! All moving violations by cyclists in the city are punished with impunity. Police regularly run over cyclists, get out of their cars and beat them with their nightsticks just before shooting them to death. At first, I thought you were catching on to my clever little ruse, but no, VICTORY IS MINE.

Is that what you wanted to hear? Do you feel vindicated now?

False dichotomies are also fallacies. It's possible that there is something in the middle, don't you think? It's possible, just possible, that you've had some experience and like most anecdotal evidence it has very limited use. You, like most people, tried to extend it to far and tried to draw a conclusion from it that is wholly illogical and when you got called on it you got all up in arms because admitting your claim is overreaching the evidence just isn't something you can do.

False dichotomies are also fallacies. It's possible that there is something in the middle, don't you think? It's possible, just possible, that you've had some experience and like most anecdotal evidence it has very limited use. You, like most people, tried to extend it to far and tried to draw a conclusion from it that is wholly illogical and when you got called on it you got all up in arms because admitting your claim is overreaching the evidence just isn't something you can do.

No, not really. Everything I've said has been true.

:D

Night, Jocabia.

Okay, I'll give you a little gift. I'm in dark grey, bandless boxer-briefs. They look oh so nice on my cyclist butt. Enjoy.

No, not really. Everything I've said has been true.

I'm not denying that you believe your conclusion. That doesn't make it logical. I have a friend who swears that he has tons of evidence that black people are criminals. It doesn't actually make his conclusion logical.

I'm not denying that you believe your conclusion. That doesn't make it logical. I have a friend who swears that he has tons of evidence that black people are criminals. It doesn't actually make his conclusion logical.

Except that the crux of your argument depends on me being a liar.

What's hilarious is how desperate you are to convince me you're telling the truth. "No, no, I swear." I'm not denying that maybe you've seen it a time or two. But expecting me to believe you see it regularly, that Philly cops are just sitting around at lights as are you is just plain nonsense. You've overreached your evidence. Everyone who reads this is going to recognize that. You desperately typing how true everything you've said is, isn't going to change that. It is going to amuse me though, so don't stop.

Except that the crux of your argument depends on me being a liar.

No, frankly, even if what you say is true, it's still very limited evidence. It doesn't lead to the conclusion they don't care. It's not stronger evidence than 50 years of driving without a ticket is that they don't care if my mother speeds. I know you want to ignore the problems with your claims even if they happened to be true. But the truth is that in both claims it could be that a number of unrelated issues caused them not to address the lawbreaking. You've pointed out several of them. I've pointed out more of them. You've not dismissed them, addressed them or overall done anything to actually demonstrate your conclusion is at all logical. Instead, you've just cried over and over that what you're saying is true.

While you're at it, shout, "I'm rubber you're glue" and really teach them a lesson.

The last time I said that, one guy broke down, cried, and then hung himself in depression.

You dont give that rebuttle nearly enough credit.

What's hilarious is how desperate you are to convince me you're telling the truth. "No, no, I swear." I'm not denying that maybe you've seen it a time or two. But expecting me to believe you see it regularly, that Philly cops are just sitting around at lights as are you is just plain nonsense. You've overreached your evidence. Everyone who reads this is going to recognize that. You desperately typing how true everything you've said is, isn't going to change that. It is going to amuse me though, so don't stop.

Keep telling yourself that I'm lying. I'm sure it will come true.

The last time I said that, one guy broke down, cried, and then hung himself in depression.

You dont give that rebuttle nearly enough credit.

Oh, I do. I once road my bike into a tree because someone flipped me off. It's amazing I survived the mental anguish.

Oh, I do. I once road my bike into a tree because someone flipped me off. It's amazing I survived the mental anguish.

Dude, seriously, I lol'd.:D

Keep telling yourself that I'm lying. I'm sure it will come true.

No, really, I believe you. *pats head for the last time* You've done an excellent job convincing me that you've done the unlikely job of sitting around intersections with cops watching cyclists blow lights. Yup. I totally believe you, Jimmy. It's definitely 15 inches.

As I've said, even if your bullshit were true, and we both know you've exaggerated, it wouldn't lead to the conclusion you're drawing. You've adequately demonstrated that there all kinds of reasons that cops could not be enforcing a given law at a given time even if someone is breaking it.

Keep telling yourself that I'm lying. I'm sure it will come true.

Keep telling yourself that I'm lying. I'm sure it will come true.

To be fair, personal anecdotes dont do jack shit here.


I mean, one time, I flew by flapping my arms really really hard. But no one blieved me.

To be fair, personal anecdotes dont do jack shit here.


I mean, one time, I flew by flapping my arms really really hard. But no one blieved me.

Except that I'm not making some far fetched claim here. People run red lights on their bikes at empty intersections and the police don't care. MY GOD, SOMEONE ALERT THE MEDIA.

Keep telling yourself that I'm lying. I'm sure it will come true.

Like I said, don't address the problems with your claims even if they're true. Just keep focusing on that. That's almost logical.

Except that I'm not making some far fetched claim here. People run red lights on their bikes at empty intersections and the police don't care. MY GOD, SOMEONE ALERT THE MEDIA.

It's not the single or even a couple of examples that makes your claims far-fetched. It's that you're claiming you witness this regularly which is so entirely unlikely that it would be unreasonable to expect us to take you at your word.

It's not the single or even a couple of examples that makes your claims far-fetched. It's that you're claiming you witness this regularly which is so entirely unlikely that it would be unreasonable to expect us to take you at your word.

Keep telling yourself that I'm lying. I'm sure it will come true.

To be fair, personal anecdotes dont do jack shit here.


I mean, one time, I flew by flapping my arms really really hard. But no one blieved me.

No pick something possible. Guys, I just finished having sex with my supermodel girlfriend with my pornstar penis after picking her up in my ferrari and beating Michael Jordan in a pickup game. Yes, it's unlikely, but it's not impossible so you have to believe me or you're paranoid.

Keep telling yourself that I'm lying. I'm sure it will come true.

Its like in Wizard of Oz.


"Theres no place like home...."

No pick something possible. Guys, I just finished having sex with my supermodel girlfriend with my pornstar penis after picking her up in my ferrari and beating Michael Jordan in a pickup game. Yes, it's unlikely, but it's not impossible so you have to believe me or you're paranoid.

Keep telling yourself that I'm lying. I'm sure it will come true.

Keep telling yourself that I'm lying. I'm sure it will come true.

It wont yet, because Joc isnt wearing red slippers atm.


Go put em on Joc.

Keep telling yourself that I'm lying. I'm sure it will come true.

I notice you've dropped the rest of the arguments. What's the matter? You don't have a way to deal with them so you have to make this about your bullshit claims? Whether your claims are true or not, your argument doesn't work. That a cop is there when someone crosses the street doesn't equal them not caring, just like it doesn't if my mother speeds past a cop. You pointed that out yourself. It's a pretty difficult task to prove that your own argument that shows that the conclusion is invalid doesn't stand, but you should at least try.

IThat a cop is there when someone crosses the street doesn't equal them not caring, just like it doesn't if my mother speeds past a cop.
Dude, to be fair, your mom probably gets away with it because shes fucking hot.

It wont yet, because Joc isnt wearing red slippers atm.


Go put em on Joc.

Have you noticed how upset he is that we don't believe him. Poor guy. He can't focus on anything else.

No, frankly, even if what you say is true, it's still very limited evidence. It doesn't lead to the conclusion they don't care. It's not stronger evidence than 50 years of driving without a ticket is that they don't care if my mother speeds. I know you want to ignore the problems with your claims even if they happened to be true. But the truth is that in both claims it could be that a number of unrelated issues caused them not to address the lawbreaking. You've pointed out several of them. I've pointed out more of them. You've not dismissed them, addressed them or overall done anything to actually demonstrate your conclusion is at all logical. Instead, you've just cried over and over that what you're saying is true.

Here is one of several posts you've completely ignored. It's no wonder why.

I notice you've dropped the rest of the arguments. What's the matter? You don't have a way to deal with them so you have to make this about your bullshit claims? Whether your claims are true or not, your argument doesn't work. That a cop is there when someone crosses the street doesn't equal them not caring, just like it doesn't if my mother speeds past a cop. You pointed that out yourself. It's a pretty difficult task to prove that your own argument that shows that the conclusion is invalid doesn't stand, but you should at least try.

Keep telling yourself that I'm lying. I'm sure it will come true.

Keep telling yourself that I'm lying. I'm sure it will come true.

"Theres no place like home."

And of course there are problems with anecdotal evidence. You've adequately demonstrated that. You're right the cops may not have seen it. They may have been distracted. They may have had somewhere else to go or something else to do. There may have been dozens of reasons other than not caring that would cause them not issue a violation. And all of those things apply equally to your anecdotes and mine, whether you admit it or not. Now, of course, mine span 50 years, making that less likely. But, hey, don't let logic get in your way all of the sudden. It hasn't even slowed down your trainwreck of an argument thus far.

Here's another one where I simply pointed out problems with your conclusion and instead of addressing the issues you simply talked about how you don't have better evidence. Obviously, that just demonstrates the problem with your argument, not bolsters it.

You can address these things, no? I mean you must be able to because if you can't your conclusion isn't any more logical than claiming the cops don't care if my mother speeds.

Here's another one where I simply pointed out problems with your conclusion and instead of addressing the issues you simply talked about how you don't have better evidence. Obviously, that just demonstrates the problem with your argument, not bolsters it.

You can address these things, no? I mean you must be able to because if you can't your conclusion isn't any more logical than claiming the cops don't care if my mother speeds.

Keep telling yourself that I'm lying. I'm sure it will come true.

Keep telling yourself that I'm lying. I'm sure it will come true.

This is what people do when they know they've got no argument. Why don't you just put your fingers in your ears and say "lalalalalala". It's as reasonable as an argument as you're presenting.

Keep telling yourself that I'm lying. I'm sure it will come true.

Man, Trve, I think he mixed up your analogy. He's clicking the hell out of those heels and repeating it over and over.

This is what people do when they know they've got no argument. Why don't you just put your fingers in your ears and say "lalalalalala". It's as reasonable as an argument as you're presenting.

Keep telling yourself that I'm lying. I'm sure it will come true.

"Theres no place like home."

Hehe. I'm laughing so hard right now. Looks like I broke another one. The best part is that he keeps coming back here, checking this thread, reading what I type and then posting the same spam post. You have to love that.

EDIT: See, there he is. Back to read the arguments that he can't address.

Hehe. I'm laughing so hard right now. Looks like I broke another one. The best part is that he keeps coming back here, checking this thread, reading what I type and then posting the same spam post. You have to love that.

EDIT: See, there he is. Back to read the arguments that he can't address.

Keep telling yourself that I'm lying. I'm sure it will come true.

Hehe.

I think it's pretty funny how long I got you to keep coming back and responding just by hitting ctrl+v. Like a trained dog! But I tire of this. Good day sir.

I think it's pretty funny how long I got you to keep coming back and responding just by hitting ctrl+v. Like a trained dog!

I'm having fun. You read the arguments. You ignored them. And the only thing you've done in reply is spam and flame. If you think that plays well for you, then great. I'm quite happy to rest on my argument.

I do love that your final post ended up being "I know you are but what am I" after I started laughing at your attempt to spam the arguments off the page.

No, frankly, even if what you say is true, it's still very limited evidence. It doesn't lead to the conclusion they don't care. It's not stronger evidence than 50 years of driving without a ticket is that they don't care if my mother speeds. I know you want to ignore the problems with your claims even if they happened to be true. But the truth is that in both claims it could be that a number of unrelated issues caused them not to address the lawbreaking. You've pointed out several of them. I've pointed out more of them. You've not dismissed them, addressed them or overall done anything to actually demonstrate your conclusion is at all logical. Instead, you've just cried over and over that what you're saying is true.

Here is one of several posts you've completely ignored. It's no wonder why.

I know you're hurt that I don't believe you, but get over it. Make an argument or move on.

EDIT: And there you are again, reading the arguments you can't address. See, that's the best part. I've got a pulpit. You lack the ability to make a reasoned response.

Keep telling yourself that I'm lying. I'm sure it will come true.

Keep telling yourself that I'm lying. I'm sure it will come true.

:-) I accept your admission that you're unable to address the problems with your argument. The current argument has nothing to do with the fact that your claims aren't true.

EDIT: I'll wait the thirty seconds for you to return to the thread and continue to read my arguments. That's why this is so much fun.

:-) I accept your admission that you're unable to address the problems with your argument. The current argument has nothing to do with the fact that your claims aren't true.

Keep telling yourself that I'm lying. I'm sure it will come true.

Here's another post you'll of course read. I'm sorry I hurt you. Clearly you took my acknowledgement of the incredible unlikelihood of your anecdotes very personally. I'm sorry I offended you. Clearly I broke you to the point where you could only copy and paste spam.

By the by, you might want to take a look at the rules for the forum. You're copy and paste spamming without making an argument. I'd hate to see you get into trouble simply because I hurt your feelings.

In case you want to actually try to salvage your argument:

And of course there are problems with anecdotal evidence. You've adequately demonstrated that. You're right the cops may not have seen it. They may have been distracted. They may have had somewhere else to go or something else to do. There may have been dozens of reasons other than not caring that would cause them not issue a violation. And all of those things apply equally to your anecdotes and mine, whether you admit it or not. Now, of course, mine span 50 years, making that less likely. But, hey, don't let logic get in your way all of the sudden. It hasn't even slowed down your trainwreck of an argument thus far.

Here's another one where I simply pointed out problems with your conclusion and instead of addressing the issues you simply talked about how you don't have better evidence. Obviously, that just demonstrates the problem with your argument, not bolsters it.

You can address these things, no? I mean you must be able to because if you can't your conclusion isn't any more logical than claiming the cops don't care if my mother speeds.

No, frankly, even if what you say is true, it's still very limited evidence. It doesn't lead to the conclusion they don't care. It's not stronger evidence than 50 years of driving without a ticket is that they don't care if my mother speeds. I know you want to ignore the problems with your claims even if they happened to be true. But the truth is that in both claims it could be that a number of unrelated issues caused them not to address the lawbreaking. You've pointed out several of them. I've pointed out more of them. You've not dismissed them, addressed them or overall done anything to actually demonstrate your conclusion is at all logical. Instead, you've just cried over and over that what you're saying is true.

Here is one of several posts you've completely ignored. It's no wonder why.

Keep telling yourself that I'm lying. I'm sure it will come true.

Keep telling yourself that I'm lying. I'm sure it will come true.

Not to take a side or anything, but statements like that kind of...detract from your argument, rather than help it....

Not to take a side or anything, but statements like that kind of...detract from your argument, rather than help it....

Oh no, I gave up any hope of reasoning with him a while ago. It's clearly no use. I've just been trolling him for a while, but it seems he'll keep responding if I just hit ctrl+v over and over again. I'm still wondering how long until he gives up. It's as if he's got some perverse fetish with arguing with a wall.

Oh no, I gave up any hope of reasoning with him a while ago. It's clearly no use. I've just been trolling him for a while, but it seems he'll keep responding if I just hit ctrl+v over and over again. I'm still wondering how long until he gives up. It's as if he's got some perverse fetish with arguing with a wall.

Well, it is a fun sentiment :headbang:

:p

Oh no, I gave up any hope of reasoning with him a while ago. It's clearly no use. I've just been trolling him for a while, but it seems he'll keep responding if I just hit ctrl+v over and over again. I'm still wondering how long until he gives up. It's as if he's got some perverse fetish with arguing with a wall.

What he means to say is that I hurt his feelings. You notice that he can only focus on the fact I don't believe him. He hasn't addressed all of the reasons why his argument doesn't stand even if it's true, but he's too busy nursing his pain to address them.

The best part is that I get to keep offering up my arguments which everyone in the thread can still read and they go unchallenged because there is no one who can reasonably counter them. Instead he's hoping he can spam the arguments of the page, because if anyone sees them, they may also notice the gaping wholes in them. What he may find out is that spamming threads like he is, just because he's upset, is likely to get him into trouble.

Well, it is a fun sentiment :headbang:

:p

It's not a wall. Other people read the arguments. I do rather enjoy ensuring that no matter how much spamming he does, that the arguments that destroy his claims remain on the current page. And you and everyone else who visits the thread know he's read every post in it. It's not as if my arguments aren't reaching him. It's that he has no reasonable reply. Unfortunately, some people take arguments very personally. I hurt his feelings.

Keep telling yourself that I'm lying. I'm sure it will come true.

Keep telling yourself that I'm lying. I'm sure it will come true.

Again, whether or not your very unlikely claims are true, it doesn't change that your conclusion doesn't follow from them. You've not addressed the plethora of reasons, some of which you brought up, why a cop might witness a crime and, either, not know it's a crime or having something else pressing to do. That they don't care is a leap that the evidence doesn't support even if you witnessed every case of running red lights by bicyclists to ever occur. More importantly, you didn't. Even in your claims, you've seen or heard about some of it. A very limited sample set that you don't have enough informatino to analyze.

EDIT: See the posters names appearing on the bottom of the thread. All of them are also reading my arguments that you've proven unable to address. But, hey, keep pretending that this argument is just about us convincing each other rather than a debate being made on a public forum.

Again, whether or not your very unlikely claims are true, it doesn't change that your conclusion doesn't follow from them. You've not addressed the plethora of reasons, some of which you brought up, why a cop might witness a crime and, either, not know it's a crime or having something else pressing to do. That they don't care is a leap that the evidence doesn't support even if you witnessed every case of running red lights by bicyclists to ever occur. More importantly, you didn't. Even in your claims, you've seen or heard about some of it. A very limited sample set that you don't have enough informatino to analyze.

Keep telling yourself that I'm lying. I'm sure it will come true.

Not to take a side or anything, but statements like that kind of...detract from your argument, rather than help it....

Now, shhhhhh. You see, obviously, when someone has a sound argument they freak out and spam the thread they made it in so no one gets to read that argument. He's repeated the same post over and over for three pages because if otherwise his embarrassing argument would be sitting here for all to read.

Of course, no matter how much he spams the thread, I'm going to keep ensuring that anyone who visits sees the flaws as I would with any debate. The best part is that he keeps refreshing this thread for no other reason than to show how much I hurt his feelings.

Now, shhhhhh. You see, obviously, when someone has a sound argument they freak out and spam the thread they made it in so no one gets to read that argument. He's repeated the same post over and over for three pages because if otherwise his embarrassing argument would be sitting here for all to read.

Keep telling yourself that I'm lying. I'm sure it will come true.

What's hilarious is how desperate you are to convince me you're telling the truth. "No, no, I swear." I'm not denying that maybe you've seen it a time or two. But expecting me to believe you see it regularly, that Philly cops are just sitting around at lights as are you is just plain nonsense. You've overreached your evidence. Everyone who reads this is going to recognize that. You desperately typing how true everything you've said is, isn't going to change that. It is going to amuse me though, so don't stop.

This was the post that broke him, folks. It's been all spam ever since.

This was the post that broke him, folks. It's been all spam ever since.

Keep telling yourself that I'm lying. I'm sure it will come true.

Hmm.. if this keeps up I might just give Sin the money for a plane ticket so she can bash Jacobia. Been wondering what to do with my tax return...

Eidt: I bet I'm 3rd on that list!

I totally missed this post. Teehee.

I already explained to you the confounding factors present in your analogy. The fact that you have not accepted several analogies I provided which more accurately portray the original concept we began with, do not have any confounding factors, and fall within your level of egregiousness limits, perfectly demonstrates your inconsistency on the acceptability of anecdotal evidence. How you came to the conclusion of "a couple examples," I have no idea. I will concede the "everyone in the city doing it." Again, take any number of non-egregious crimes, smoking pot, public nudity, public urination, violation of noise ordinances, whatever is most appealing to you. If people were committing that crime regularly in front of cops and none of the cops did anything about it, wouldn't you conclude that the cops didn't care? Anecdotal evidence triumphs again.

Right, the same confounding factors you ignore in your anecdote. You demonstrated my point. It's not my fault you're unable to see the same problames in your anecdote. I don't accept that running 90 in a 25 is the same as a cyclist crossing the street on a red when no traffic is present. It's actually amusing that you'd try to make the comparison because it demonstrates you're point is very weak. Strangely, you'll have me believe that running a red on a bicycle is comparable to running 90 mph in a 25 mph zone. How could that possibly help your argument?

You amuse me that you keep saying that anecdotal evidence triumphs while refusing to accept it. What you mean to say is, anecdotal evidence triumphs provided I can change my claim, my argument and cherrypick and/or completely make up evidence as I like. And you're right, provided you get to do all of those illogical things, anecdotal evidence does actually support your conclusion.

If I witnessed it regularly, which you haven't, I'd still ahve to consider what you call "counfounding factors". In the case of running red lights, in those few cases where a cop might have witnessed it, I'd have to know if they were headed to a more important call, if they had jurisdiction, if they saw it, if they saw the light, if they could get to the cyclist, and any number of things. And even if I concluded one or two or three or five cops didn't care, it wouldn't drive me to conclusion that all of them don't care. It's called a Hasty Generalization. Look it up.

Right, the same confounding factors you ignore in your anecdote. You demonstrated my point. It's not my fault you're unable to see the same problames in your anecdote. I don't accept that running 90 in a 25 is the same as a cyclist crossing the street on a red when no traffic is present. It's actually amusing that you'd try to make the comparison because it demonstrates you're point is very weak. Strangely, you'll have me believe that running a red on a bicycle is comparable to running 90 mph in a 25 mph zone. How could that possibly help your argument?

You amuse me that you keep saying that anecdotal evidence triumphs while refusing to accept it. What you mean to say is, anecdotal evidence triumphs provided I can change my claim, my argument and cherrypick and/or completely make up evidence as I like. And you're right, provided you get to do all of those illogical things, anecdotal evidence does actually support your conclusion.

Keep telling yourself that I'm lying. I'm sure it will come true.

Yo Jimmy, it's not worth getting heated up like this and possibly getting in trouble. It just isn't. Don't take things personally: it's just an internet forum. Unless somebody says they want to anally rape your goat, just brush it off.

Yo Jimmy, it's not worth getting heated up like this and possibly getting in trouble. It just isn't. Don't take things personally: it's just an internet forum. Unless somebody says they want to anally rape your goat, just brush it off.

I see you pointed this out to the mods. I tried to tell him to look at the rules. I wasn't trying to upset him. I just don't buy the extent of experience he's claiming to have. It's totally unlikely. It doesn't make him a bad person, he just exaggerated a bit. Worse, it's irrelevant. I've posted several arguments that address the case even if what he's saying is true. Basically, he can't or won't address anything other than whether or not he sits around intersections watching cops not do their jobs. Unless dozens of cops are turning to him and going, yeah, Jimmy, I just don't care if cyclists follow the law, then his evidence isn't even remotely compelling.

Unless somebody says they want to anally rape your goat, just brush it off.

You just HAAAAD to bring that up again, Gawd! :mad:


One guy anally rapes a goat, and he just never lives it down, sheesh!

You just HAAAAD to bring that up again, Gawd! :mad:


One guy anally rapes a goat, and he just never lives it down, sheesh!

Anal rape is the new "it". Even goats are no longer safe.

the rent it here leave it there bike vendo setup i've seen mentioned of/in some parts of europe is absolutely fascinating to me and yup, sure do wish we had something like that here.

wish we had people here (u.s.of a.) we could trust each other with anything decent too.

i'm more of a transit inthusiast myself being also an enthusiest of mountainous country, where me+bike+nothing but steep hills not being my favorite combination. i do thing pedal power in relatively flat country is maybe the next best thing to sex. the only problem being relatively flat country tends to be considerably warmer (and less interesting) then i prefer.

i like best of all, small form factor vehicules, m.u. capable, stored energy powered with onboard solar recharging on very narrow guideway.

i just wish i was born in a world, hopefully next life i will be, where all the oil and coal are gone, or never were, and people had had to come up with and rely primarily upon wind/solar/hydro/geo et al. and still had the creative drive to come up with really gratifying tec none the less, which i believe is in this worlds future also, if hoomans doing idiotically destroy their world's ability to support their own existence first.

I love when I cross the idiots who ride on the pavements when I'm walking. It's the moment when weighing 95 kg pays off.
15stone? You're lanky as well, aren't you?
No, because we don't have roads either. We are yet to invent the wheel, and instead ride on the backs of mammoths.
I lol'd.

Keep telling yourself that I'm lying. I'm sure it will come true.

....posted for the sole reason to spam. I must admit, Jocobia was being more than reasonable.

I think it's pretty funny how long I got you to keep coming back and responding just by hitting ctrl+v. Like a trained dog! But I tire of this. Good day sir.

Oh no, I gave up any hope of reasoning with him a while ago. It's clearly no use. I've just been trolling him for a while, but it seems he'll keep responding if I just hit ctrl+v over and over again. I'm still wondering how long until he gives up. It's as if he's got some perverse fetish with arguing with a wall.

Admission of a thread spamming, and trolling. This makes my job easier. All I got to do is quote this, and res ipsa loquitor. Warned.

Voted "old commuter guy."

I have never owned a car and only driven one a half-dozen times (oh the tales I could tell!)

If my bike (a seventies 10-speed, amazingly reliable and low-maintenance) and public transport won't get me there, I don't go.

I don't go. A lot.

Admission of a thread spamming, and trolling. This makes my job easier. All I got to do is quote this, and res ipsa loquitor. Warned.

Lulz.

Ugh. I scrolled through six pages of this thread and most of it is not about bicycles.

the rent it here leave it there bike vendo setup i've seen mentioned of/in some parts of europe is absolutely fascinating to me and yup, sure do wish we had something like that here.

wish we had people here (u.s.of a.) we could trust each other with anything decent too.

....

They're coming to North America. Montreal is starting a system like that called the Bixi. www.bixi.ca

I ride a fixed gear type most of the time. I dress for the weather. I ride on the street. I ride through red lights and stop signs if I won't risk anyone's safety or slow anyone else down. I put my feet in the clips and don't take them out until I get where I'm going.

Ride like you're invisible. They probably don't see you.

Or maybe you're just some middle-aged guy trying to get to work riding along at 12 mph?
Fixed.

Originally Posted by NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ
Or maybe you're just some middle-aged guy trying to get to work riding along at 1 mph?
Fixed.

Fixed.

Well, if you'd give us a clue wtf you're doing before veering in front of us or running the red light, maybe there'd be fewer close calls and collisions?

I'm one of those inconsiderate bastards who looks before flinging my door open, btw, stops for red lights and stop signs and signals lane changes. You know. Obeying the rules of the road that governs ALL vehicular traffic.

Don't you feel a little out of place doing all that? I mean, you do live in the Big Apple... :p

I bike for my enjoyment, I don't care what group I fall into.

Although for your information I ride a mountain bike through the city which is painted in 1985 TTE colours. No one ever gets the reference.

As to riding on sidewalks or roads. I'll say the same thing I said to an RCMP officer who was in the city helping local police after a bad hurricane. When they make safe bike lanes and can guarantee my safety, I will ride entirely on the roads. Until then I will trust my instinct and drive on the sidewalks, roads, and wherever I please. I can read pedestrians, I can't read idiot drivers. At least I have the sense to pay attention to what's around me and not hit things, or jet out in front of traffic like an idiot.

Thank the gods the RCM has no jurisdiction in the HRM, and the HRM police are very unpleasant when the RCMP tries to but into their jurisdiction. Since this event (five years ago) we've finally acquired a bike lane! Anyone in Halifax can see it as it spans down South Park Street from Spring Garden Road to Morris Street. Anyone with google maps access can tell right away that means it's alongside a park (Legally pedestrian and bike user), and only half a kilometer long. So it's entirely useless. But hey, we have a bike lane!

I live in one of the best places for cycling; Milton Keynes.

Why, I hear you ask? Well, there's two reasons.


A network of foot/cycle paths taking cyclists away from busy roads.
Lots and lots of parkland.