What’s in a name? That which we call a bike path, by any other name would…

[ShawnoftheDread]

@Tim Kelley 102151 wrote:

But then I don’t expect too many people on this forum to agree with me because the majority of folks here are seven percent-ers…

Outlaw cyclists?

[Tim Kelley]

@ShawnoftheDread 102165 wrote:

Outlaw cyclists?

From the article linked:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]7203[/ATTACH]

[ShawnoftheDread]

How can “no way no how” be a type of transportation cyclist?

[dkel]

@jrenaut 102148 wrote:

Nope. If I meant that, I would have said that. Precision.

You mean, “if I had meant that.” :rolleyes:

[lordofthemark]

@ShawnoftheDread 102169 wrote:

How can “no way no how” be a type of transportation cyclist?

They should have said “Four classes of the population in terms of their relationship to transportation cycling”. To be precise.

[Alcova cyclist]

I will admit to being initially confused by “cycletrack” as noob around here (though not really a noob to cycling). As someone mentioned upthread, “cycletrack” gave me a vision of a banked & looped facility with crazed MAMILs going flat out on carbon fiber road bikes. I did not sound to me like something I wanted to ride on — or could get me from A to B.

Now that I have all of ten or so posts to my name, I feel much more hip to lingo as the kids don’t say. Still, I guess the average person who’s not all that invested in cycling infrastructure would not likely have a good sense of what a cycletrack is just hearing the term — and those who might be in favor of a “protected bike lane” or “bikeway” might think a “cycletrack” sounds like a waste of money and space.

[mstone]

@dkel 102171 wrote:

You mean, “if I had meant that.” :rolleyes:

Accuracy is just as important as precision.

[DismalScientist]

No, accuracy is more important.

[Orestes Munn]

@DismalScientist 102183 wrote:

No, accuracy is more important.

Yes indeed. Error can have zero variance.

[Vicegrip]

@Tim Kelley 102167 wrote:

From the article linked:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]7203[/ATTACH]

They forgot “artisanal”

[jrenaut]

@dkel 102171 wrote:

You mean, “if I had meant that.” :rolleyes:

The “had” is implied. Still precise, just colloquial. Though, now that you bring it up, I think it sounds a little nicer your way.

[dkel]

@jrenaut 102205 wrote:

The “had” is implied. Still precise, just colloquial. Though, now that you bring it up, I think it sounds a little nicer your way.

Like in an implied subject, often called “you understood.” For example, when I write, “stop trying to rationalize your mistakes,” it’s understood that I’m talking to you.

Just as an example.

[jrenaut]

@dkel 102206 wrote:

Like in an implied subject, often called “you understood.” For example, when I write, “stop trying to rationalize your mistakes,” it’s understood that I’m talking to you.

Just as an example.

Well played, sir. You must have taken some advanced math classes.

[dkel]

@jrenaut 102207 wrote:

Well played, sir. You must have taken some advanced math classes.

Precisely! —I mean, accurately!

[chris_s]

I nominate this thread for “Great Moments in Pedantry”.

[Author]

Posts