Dan Gutierrez is a child

[velorambler]

I wrote a none to flattering comment of Dan Gutierrez on facebook group Cyclists are Drivers after he slammed John Forrester.
I said he was every bit as hard headed and irrascible as John Forrester.
I thought it was pretty restrained.
I felt like telling him he  could kiss my ass, but I refrained.
He responded by banning me.
This is how a representative of CABO treats others?
I guess he can dish it out, but he can't take it.
Good going Dan.
If the game doesn't go your way, take your ball and go home.
How childish.
I presume this will also get me banned by this group, if Dan has anything to say about it.
That's OK too, I wouldn't want to belong to any group that would have me as a member.

Neil Schneider                         velorambler over-at gmail dot com
http://www.velorambler.com

    __o
  _'\<,_
 (*)/  (*)

"Work to eat, eat to live, live to bike, bike to work." -- Naomi Bloom

[Bob Sutterfield]

The Facebook group Cyclists are Drivers! is Dan's own forum.

It is not a CABO forum or resource.

As with any such forum, the creator can do with it as he pleases.

What Dan does there is "on his own time", not representing CABO.

--
Bob Sutterfield

CABO director, District 4 (south Bay)

[Cycleman]

Neil,

 

Don’t feel alone.  Everyone who has ever tried to disagree with Dan has been disemboweled and immediately and in public!

 

He is not good to play well with others.  He needs an anger management degree.

 

He needs to hit the Lotto, buy, and become his own king of his own island!

 

Just ignore him and all of his perceived titles.  I have never met anyone who likes or believes his outrageous diatribes against all who might have a differing opinion. – Frank Neal

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/caboforum?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Daniel Gutierrez]

Neil didn't mention that he was treating another member of the Cyclists are Drivers! group on facebook, John Schubert, who many of you may know, in a condescending way.  When I demonstrated that his assertion was not correct, he then attacked me personally, so I threw him out of the group.  Minor facebook drama to be sure, and Neil then decided to cry to this group.  Apparently if Neil can't have his way, by continuing to insult me on facebook, he tries to continue the insults here.

I didn't take my ball and go home, instead Neil came to my group and behaved badly, so I removed him and also blocked him because I have no interest in ever communicating with him again, here or on facebook.

It is a serious breach of netiquette to bring disputes from another forum to this one, and I responded here to set the record straight on why Neil was removed from the FB group.

- Dan Gutierrez -
CABO President

---

 

 

From: cabo...@googlegroups.com [mailto:cabo...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of velorambler
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:54 AM
To: cabo...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [CABOforum] Dan Gutierrez is a child

 

I wrote a none to flattering comment of Dan Gutierrez on facebook group Cyclists are Drivers after he slammed John Forrester.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at

http://groups.google.com/group/caboforum?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Pete van Nuys]

CABO Folks, good morning.

 

Anyone familiar with this study? Please advise, as I'm being asked to endorse the city of Anaheim's proposed bicycle facilities based on its veracity.

 

 “Route Infrastructure and the Risk of Injuries to Bicyclists: A Case-Crossover Study, published in the American Journal of Public Health (December, 2012) shows that injuries to cyclists are reduced by 50% on local streets with designated bike paths with no parked cars and by 90% on bike pathways designated for cyclists only."

 

I have to admit that I'm attracted to the idea of a "bike pathway for cyclists only."  I envision a bicycle freeway.

[Sauerwald Mark]

I am not familiar with the study, but from my cycling experience, my guess is that the greatest contribution comes from the 'no parked cars' portion.   When riding on a road with on street parking, there are two problems - one is that a cyclist, especially one who is riding in the door zone, is less visible to overtaking traffic, the second is that the cyclist has his attention split between the cars parked to his right, and the potential for a pedestrian to step out from between parked cars, and the cars to his left.      

I am not aware of any studies to this effect, but it would be interesting to do a study to determine the marginal effect on safety by simple elimination of on-street parking.

---

From: Pete van Nuys <petev...@cox.net>
To: Daniel.A....@Aero.Org; cabo...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 4:51 AM
Subject: [CABOforum] bicycle accidents reduced 50%!

[John Eldon]

Eliminating on street parking can have two unintended adverse consequences -- public backlash against bicycle accommodations and increased vehicle speeds. On street parking is often proposed as part of a traffic calming strategy, and studies in the UK found that the safest streets were the old "substandard" winding and narrow ones with on street parking, because the street geometry forced motorists to slow down and to pay close attention to the task at hand.

I think we have to take this issue on a case-by-case basis.

John E.

On 5/22/2013 7:40 AM, Sauerwald Mark wrote:

I am not familiar with the study, but from my cycling experience, my guess is that the greatest contribution comes from the 'no parked cars' portion. � When riding on a road with on street parking, there are two problems - one is that a cyclist, especially one who is riding in the door zone, is less�visible�to overtaking traffic, the second is that the cyclist has his attention split between the cars parked to his right, and the potential for a pedestrian to step out from between parked cars, and the cars to his left. � � �

[John Forester]

My review of the Teschke study is found at:

http://johnforester.com/Articles/Facilities/Infrastructure%20&%20Injuries.pdf

I conclude that this study is not worth giving serious attention to.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/caboforum?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

-- 
John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St. Lemon Grove CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481    fore...@johnforester.com
www.johnforester.com

[Bob Shanteau]

Pete,

It would not be surprising to find that cycle tracks and bike lanes with a minimal number of cross streets and driveways would have fewer accidents than edge riding. But this says nothing about what would happen with more intersections and driveways or whether the cycle tracks and bike lanes would be safer for bicyclists who engage in driver behavior.

Also, there is no reason to believe that the experience on the observed cycle tracks and bike lanes would be representative of experience anywhere else.

Bob Shanteau

From: Pete van Nuys <petev...@cox.net>

To: Daniel.A....@Aero.Org; cabo...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 4:51 AM
Subject: [CABOforum] bicycle accidents reduced 50%!

CABO Folks, good morning.

�

Anyone familiar with this study? Please advise, as I'm being asked to endorse the city of Anaheim 's proposed bicycle facilities based on its veracity.

�

��Route Infrastructure and the Risk of Injuries to Bicyclists: A Case-Crossover Study, published in the American Journal of Public Health (December, 2012) shows that injuries to cyclists are reduced by 50% on local streets with designated bike paths with no parked cars and by 90% on bike pathways designated for cyclists only."

�

I have to admit that I'm attracted to the idea of a "bike pathway for cyclists only."� I envision a bicycle freeway.

[Donald Shupp]

Neil,

I feel that you're absolutely correct about the individual, but the group as a whole is very rational. I speak from experience here, with a similar situation involving a mild debate on a gun control issue. You quickly lose all respect for those who run away like babies, instead of having the guts to stand up for what they believe in.

- Don

[Pete van Nuys]

John, thanks.

 

After emailing my request to CABO this AM, I signed up for the AJPH mag and downloaded the article. I then discovered it was the one you and Dan separately have already critiqued.

 

I've shared my concern with Anaheim planning staff, not that I anticipate it will do much good at this point, as they have grant funding dollar $s in their eyes.  We'll see.

 

Anaheim up to now has been fairly serious about closing bike lane and multiuse trail gaps, which I consider on balance good for cycling. But they refuse to commit even excess roadway width to bicycle use between the Santa Ana River Trail and the resort area. For a city which courts tourist revenue so desperately they are blowing a chance to reduce car speed, volume, noise, and pollution by offering visitors a means to leave their cars parked at their lodgings, and use their own or the hotel's bikes. DownTown Disney is giant pedestrian retail environment, successful because it provides a human scale shopping and dining experience within walking distance of the theme parks.  But tourists have to drive the half-mile or mile from their hotels to park in Disney's giant structure.

 

Hundreds, maybe thousands of car trips a day could be saved with only the minimum changes to the streets serving the resort area.

If a truly safe bicycle track -  say with no at grade street crossings -  were built and promoted as a visit-enhancing tourist amenity - no doubt many thousands of trips could be eliminated, improving traffic and parking conditions significantly.

 

---

[Mike Aldrich]

Thank you!  In my mind he is his own worst enemy and doesn't understand how to inspire people.  I had the audacity to suggest:

1) That legislation is only one part of the problem.  That the larger problem is that motor vehicle drivers treat each other and cyclists as obstacles instead of people.

2) That the psychological aspects of waiting are worth considering in creating a solution.

3) That motorcycles differ from cars in that they can KEEP up with traffic.  I cannot always ride at the speed limit and cause issues that motorcycles do not.

4) That roads and traffic are different in different areas and may require different approaches and solutions.

5) That I am much more fragile on a bike than I am in a car.

 

He then stated "you clearly don't support bicycle driving, and I'm not interested in wasting any more time one you and your hostility toward bicycle drivers. I am removing you from this group."  This  ended the conversation.   Dan, you made your point.  "Agree with my paradigm, because everyone else's view is skewed and wrong.  Read my riveting article on the history of bike legislation" (Wow Dan, it has been all over the place!  So?)

 

Dan is a small percentage (bicycle drivers?) of a small percentage (cyclists) and he thinks that the legislators should change because of HIS views?  Why?  Because he is right and they are wrong?  Good luck.

 

Appeal to their hearts when you are the minority.  This is not a game of chess.

[Judy Frankel]

Different groups have different purposes.  Cyclists Are Drivers has a purpose and it’s not to debate whether a cyclist is a driver on the road.  If that is not your feeling that is fine but it’s the right of the group owner how much he wants to spend time debating it.  It’s his group.

 

I’ve profited from a great deal of education from that group…and have seen others learn a lot there too.  There are many fine and knowledgeable people there to help with many local situations that arise.  It’s a public site, so anyone is welcome to read it.  People who have been banned have also been allowed to return if that’s what they want.  But if you are on it only to argue then you really don’t want to be on it anyway.

 

People have their personalities.. and also their value… Dan contributes a huge amount.  And educates a huge amount.  I am really happy he spends so much of his time to make the world safer for cycling.

 

Judy

 

From: cabo...@googlegroups.com [mailto:cabo...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike Aldrich

Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 11:02 AM
To: cabo...@googlegroups.com

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/caboforum.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Bob Shanteau]

On 3/12/2014 11:02 AM, Mike Aldrich wrote:
> Thank you! In my mind he is his own worst enemy and doesn't
> understand how to inspire people. I had the audacity to suggest:
> 1) That legislation is only one part of the problem. That the larger
> problem is that motor vehicle drivers treat each other and cyclists as
> obstacles instead of people.
> 2) That the psychological aspects of waiting are worth considering in
> creating a solution.
> 3) That motorcycles differ from cars in that they can KEEP up with
> traffic. I cannot always ride at the speed limit and cause issues
> that motorcycles do not.
> 4) That roads and traffic are different in different areas and may
> require different approaches and solutions.
> 5) That I am much more fragile on a bike than I am in a car.

Actually, Dan removed you from the list because you kept saying that
bicyclists should be treated as persons and not traffic. In the lexicon
of traffic safety, traffic is defined as all legitimate road users. In
addition, by law, bicyclists have the same rights and duties of drivers
of vehicles as far as the rules of the road are concerned. Had you been
willing to recast your thoughts based on those facts, you would have
been welcome to stay. But you were not, so Dan removed you.

Bob Shanteau