> > > > Translation: You "should" work on becoming "comptent" (like Frank).
> > > Well, Dan, I've been told (by people who should know) that I am very
> > > competent; that they've learned from riding with me. But whether or
> > > not their judgment was correct, a person _should_ work at becoming
> > > competent. What are the other choices? To work at incompetence? To
> > > bumble along without any thought? No thanks.
> > So you *were* suggesting that Jay is incompetent?
> That's not what I said, Dan. You need to get more competent at
you said some of th eusual stuff suggesting that Jay's problem may (or
must) be due to his incompetence. I called you on it. Then you
*defended* the need to work on becoming competent! Jeez Louise, man!
> > My point was that there are many, *many* of us for whom motorists e.g.
> > pulling out in front of us *is* a problem when on our bicycles, and it
> > *doesn't* mean we're incompetent, and are long past sick and tired of
> > that mantra from you.
> Let's review. You and I have very different riding styles, based on
> what's posted here.
Frank and Dan riding bikes (motorized or not) through town. Everyone
swoons when they see Frank, "Oh, he's so *competent*, *so* brave!" ;-)
> You say you are one of many, *many* who have lots
> of problems on the road.
I think I say, "there are many, *many* of us for whom motorists e.g.
pulling out in front of us *is* a problem when on our bicycles"
> I don't seem to have those problems nearly
> as often.
Risk / reward. Different values.
> Yet you think your riding style is just as good as mine - or, really,
> far better.
Far better for my purposes. I've been quite clear on that. I
wouldn't even call you a fuddy duddy - would instead say, "nothing
worng with that" - if you didn't so egregiously denigrate me
> Based on your own complaints, how on earth can you
> justify that? Are you pretending that your misfortune is due only to
> weirdly consistent bad luck? Or were you born under the wrong
> astrological sign? Or is some witchcraft working against you?
"Consistent bad luck"? I have a mix of luck like everyone (forgot to
mention how luck - or providence, whatever - figures prominently
alonside competency in keeping me alive.)
> I believe in cause and effect. I made serious effort to read, study,
> attend programs and classes, and LEARN the best way to ride.
> And -
> son of a gun! - it seems to work. Getting knowledge and training has
> produced beneficial results.
Alonside being chickenshit.
> Meanwhile, you have apparently spent your time pretending that you are
> uniquely observant, hyper-perceptive, tremendously skilled, and much
> smarter than those people who ride non-chaotically. But motorists
> pulling out is a problem for you - as is crashing in various other
> ways. Funny how you don't connect your riding style to your problems
> on the road!
I absolutely understand cause and effect and risk / reward.
> Maybe you need to sacrifice some chickens to the gods...
Speaking of chickens...
> ... of the chaotic
Where have you gone, Hans Monderman?
> ... so they'll bless your primitive, uneducated riding style. Or
> maybe you need to learn what the hell you're supposed to do on a
> bicycle. It's your choice, of course.
"Supposed to do". And there we have it in a nutshell.
> I know which one works for most people. But I also "know" you're 100%
> unique and not described by any data...
I know data pretty well, man.
> - exactly like all the other
> wrong-way, drunk, sidewalk-zooming, no-lights-at-night, "don't tell me
> what to do" bike riders that dominate the crash counts.
Sure, just pick one at random. Call him Dan... or Fred - whatever.
Of course you're "exactly" right.
And you tell everyone else there is always more to learn.