It’s not a black & white issue but rather depends on the sidewalk. The 2½-or-so mile stretch of the W&OD trail that’s on a sidewalk crosses no driveways, has few fences, and most intersections are marked with a little stop sign. That route also crosses a pedestrian bridge at a couple of points.
No, it’s not.
As usual, your logic is suspect. According to your link, there have only been 5 fatalities since 1974. The trail is 45 MILES LONG, and you’re trying to conclude that since no fatality has happened on a 2.5 mile stretch, that it’s safer on that 2.5 mile segment? Surely you can see how ludicrous that is. There are MULTIPLE 2.5 mile segments that are NOT sidewalks which ALSO have had 0 fatalities. You are engaging in the “small sample” logical fallacy.
That’s lame, even for you.
It’s still safer to ride in the street. I’ll besmirch all I like, and twice on Tuesday. 
No, I’m concluding that the sidewalk itself is not as dangerous as you’re trying to make it out to be. Slight difference there.
Maybe I’m being too cryptic or something. Try this: riding on any surface is equally dangerous if one doesn’t follow the rules.
I mostly agree with you, but I disagree with this.
Let’s say I ride equally dangerously on the road and on the sidewalk.
If I ride on the road, I am riding dangerously in a place where drivers and pedestrians and other cyclists expect me to be. So even if I am a total maniac, if they are driving safely they will mostly be able to take evasive action where necessary.
If I ride on the sidewalk, I am doing so in a place where they do NOT expect me to be. It is harder for them to avoid me simply because they don’t expect me to be there. And the nature of bike-on-the-sidewalk accidents (i.e. bike entering intersection sooner than car is looking for bike-speed traffic) means there is way less time for the driver to react.
(Of course, this is slightly different in cases where the bike lane is actually on the sidewalk. But it is my suspicion that since these are so rare, drivers are still regularly surprised by cyclists riding properly on sidewalk-bike lanes. Note that this has not been demonstrated in this thread yet either way.)
The evidence you have presented does not support that conclusion. All I have said is that the street is less dangerous than the sidewalk. You have not demonstrated otherwise.
Eep. Quite right; apparently I oversimplified my position. 
And I’m saying that it’s not the sidewalk itself that is more dangerous but rather those who don’t know how (care?) to behave on one. You illustrated that yourself a few posts up.
Yes, I can. A single thread often discusses a number of related issues. It’s quite legitimate to participate in a thread to discuss one or two of those issues, and not take a stand on the others.
You had plenty of time to raise the ‘alternate route’ stuff as a problem with my argument, long before the point where you did. To not do so for pages and pages of thread, then accuse me of ‘gaming’ you (@290) because I didn’t address it, is bullshit.
If that’s how you’re going to play, then may a touring bike’s handlebars find their way up your rectum.
I’m NOT the boss of you. And you, of your own volition, failed to raise that issue with me, except to claim I’d been gaming you by not addressing it. At which point I expressed considerable puzzlement.
If you don’t say something to me, you have no reasonable expectation that I’ve heard it.
Let’s try something more reasonable. Like: “you’re legally entitled to walk down C Street SE (D.C.) east of the Anacostia at 11pm on a Saturday night, but it would be a pretty stupid and dangerous thing to do.”
I see you couldn’t come up with a quote of me saying you even mentioned alternate routes. So your ranting about how you never said it makes no sense.
Not when you jump in on my argument with catsix and take catsix’s side even though you hold a different position.
No, no, no. You’re fixating on the words “alternate route”, which is not the point.
This is what catsix said:
I disagreed with a number of catsix’s assertions, one of which being that it’s safe to travel 50 mph simply because that’s the speed limit:
Another being the contention that bicycles must pull off the road when a car is behind them:
With me so far? Good.
Now here’s where you first start misrepreseting catsix’s position:
Catsix said:
and I said:
In RESPONSE to me, you said:
Clearly wrong. Catsix was citing a written manual, not “real-life conditions”. You jumped in on the argument with a strawman position.
But I tried to address your argument anyway:
I’m trying there to agree with you that in “real-life conditions” a bike rider should try to be safe. (Even though that wasn’t the jist of my exchange with catsix at all.) I add my own opinion that it’s contingent on having an alternate route (since otherwise this would render the alternative to be staying home.) But that is in no way the crux of the argument.
Later, I argue that sharing a road with a bicycle is a commonplace event and no cause for concern. You respond:
And I respond:
And you say:
So again, whereas catsix had clearly made claims that bicyclists who can only go 5 mph in a 50 zone are “self-entitled assholes” who are “creating a hazard” and don’t belong on the road, YOU argue that car drivers are creating the hazard because they don’t know “how to handle sloppy weather”.
Do you see that you and catsix are making different arguments, yet you pretend to have the same point?
You see, I AGREED with you that as a matter of prudence, it’s wise to avoid dangerous roads on your bike. And THAT’S why I said:
I said I FELT like you guys were gaming me because you and catsix were making what I consider to be VERY DIFFERENT points, yet alternately jumping in on my responses to the other as though you share the same point.
I didn’t “accuse” you of gaming me; I said I felt like you were doing it. I don’t think you deliberately collabarated or anything.
I don’t know where you’re getting this idea that it’s because “you didn’t mention alternate routes”. That makes no sense to me.
Logic! What are they teaching them in those schools these days?
Of course I can’t come up with a quote of you saying I mentioned alternate routes. I didn’t mention them, you didn’t mention them to me, and then, @290, you accused me of gaming you because I hadn’t mentioned them.
Our positions do differ in some particulars, even though we’re for the most part arguing the same side.
So?? That goes on all the time around here. And IRL. You know that a lot of people are against the Iraq war, but their reasons aren’t all exactly the same? Same here. Omigosh golly.
Damned if I can tell what the point is; your ‘point’ seems to change with great frequency. I don’t give a flip about alternate routes; I’m just pointing out that your claim that I gamed you by not addressing the ‘alternate route’ sub-issue is bullshit.
I’m not even going to bother with this nonsense unless you provide post numbers. This thread is eight freakin’ pages long, and I’m not going to traverse its length and breadth to unravel your bullshit unless you give specific posts.
One more thing though:
You might go back to post #290, and read your next sentence after you say you feel I’m gaming you.
If you’re that deliberately obtuse, I think it’s time for me to buy back my introduction to you.
Judging by you, I shudder to think.
Do me a favor. Go to your precious “post #190” and find the words “because you didn’t mention alternate routes”. They aren’t there. I have no idea what the fuck you think you’re talking about.
Sheesh, I spent a lot of time explaining this in my last post, and you obviously didn’t even read it.
The fact that it goes on doesn’t mean it’s not disingenuous.
But they don’t normally jump in on arguments with another person as though they hold the same position. Omigosh golly yourself, asshole.
I think your lack of reading comprehension is the problem.
I did not claim that you gamed me “by not addressing the alternate route issue”. Seriously, dude - learn how to FUCKING READ.
I wasted a LOT of time trying to explain this to you. If you’re that fucking stupid, I’m not wasting another second. You’re just too lazy to read what I wrote. Those are all legitimate quotes. If you had actually been following this thread in the first place, you’d know the jist of it anyway. You obviously don’t.
O.K., it’s quite obvious now that you didn’t read my last post AT ALL.
I’m sick of your games; get back to me when you can form a coherent and consistent point.
Tell ya’ what. Here’s a summary for dummies:
-
Catsix said bicyclists who can only ride 5 mph in a 50 zone with blind curves are “self-entitled assholes” who are creating a danger and don’t belong on the road.
-
RTFirefly said that as a bicyclist, one should choose not to take a road if the car drivers are creating a danger.
-
(1) and (2) are not the same argument.
-
Lowbrass agrees with RTFirefly’s point of view to a certain extent, but does not agree with catsix’s view AT ALL.
-
Lowbrass said he FELT like Catsix and RTFirefly were “gaming him” because they each jumped in on lowbrass’ exchanges with the other, even though catsix and RT argued a different point of view.
-
The words “alternate route” have nothing to do with this.
If you can’t read and comprehend that, I’m through with ya’.
Good. Maybe you can understand what you’re saying, for once.
I’m not counting on your understanding the reply, even if I use small words.
You’re right: I didn’t agree with the “self-entitled assholes” part. Just that such cyclists are creating a danger, and don’t belong on the sorts of roads we clearly both had in mind.
Not exactitude, but close enough to jump in on the same side.
If you have a problem with that, you should find yourself another board, where everyone’s as dumb as you are. You can communicate in grunts transmittted by .wav files.
That would be rather tricky, given that the main difference between my position and catsix’ was the ‘self-entitled assholes’ descriptor.
Plus the one time you conveyed a hint at agreement, it lasted for about one post.
I’ve responded to exactly two of your posts, AFAICT, that weren’t responses to mine. And only one of those posts of yours was a response to catsix; the other was a reply to Lute.
Not that it matters. Anyone can reply to any post. If you want a private conversation, this board allows for private messages.
You really should reconsider whether you belong on this board, if Poster Y’s replying to your response to Poster X sets you off. Because it’s the norm here.
Good. Wish you hadn’t said, “I feel like you guys are gaming me here. I already said I agree that if route A is safer than route B, then you should take route A.”
Fine with me either way. You’re not exactly in the running for Most Valuable Newbie of the current SDMB season.
I’m starting to wish I hadn’t too, because you sure took the fucking ball and ran way, way, way, way, waaaaay too far with that one. :rolleyes:
That hurts me, because I have so much respect for you.
not.
Oh that is CLASSIC!!!
lowbrass, you’re autistic, right? Or have Asperger’s or something like that? If not, then lie and say you do, so we’ll at least feel bad for laughing at you. I suppose the alternative would be to cop to Opalcat’s branding of you as a “total blinders-on asshole,” because that nails you absent some glaring mental defect.
–ali, who read this ENTIRE THREAD
Thanks for that well thought out and logically presented argument. That’s your third post on the the forum, huh? If you are a real person and not somebody’s sock, I predict you’re going to last about 3 days here.