Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

View Poll Results: Should VC discussions be moved to P&R?
Yes, move it. 24 48.00%
No, who cares. 26 52.00%
Voters: 50. You may not vote on this poll

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-12-06, 12:37 PM   #1
chipcom 
Infamous Member
Thread Starter
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Posts: 24,366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Poll: Should VC discussions be moved to P&R?

Since VC advocates constantly include dogma and political rhetoric in their discussions - indeed they openly admit that they do not advocate for all cyclists, but rather only those who sign on to their own narrow point of view, I would suggest that any discussions of VC be moved to the Politics & Religion forum where they belong, so the rest of us can discuss advocacy and safety for ALL cyclists, rather than only those that drink the kool-aid of a political brand.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
chipcom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-06, 12:46 PM   #2
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 23,860
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chipcom
Since VC advocates constantly include dogma and political rhetoric in their discussions - indeed they openly admit that they do not advocate for all cyclists, but rather only those who sign on to their own narrow point of view, I would suggest that any discussions of VC be moved to the Politics & Religion forum where they belong, so the rest of us can discuss advocacy and safety for ALL cyclists, rather than only those that drink the kool-aid of a political brand.
The sooner the better.

And while we try to seperate the wheat from the chaff and put the square pegs in the proper hole:

I would like to see the OT posts bashing "Cager Culture" (to include associated smarmy generalizations and stereotypes and OT macro-economic speculation)) taken to the Car-free forum or Foo where such non bicyling related counter culture rants may be more appropriate.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-06, 01:15 PM   #3
Roody
Sophomoric Member
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Bikes:
Posts: 23,587
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)
I believe that all who disagree with chip's point of view should be totally banished from the forum, which will be given the new name of ChipcomForums.net.
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-06, 01:25 PM   #4
LittleBigMan
Sumanitu taka owaci
 
LittleBigMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Bikes:
Posts: 8,945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
No.

Perhaps a little more self-control in the area of "discussion drift." Every thread in the Advocacy and Safety forum does not have to be a continuation of the never-ending debate between pro-VC and anti-VC.

The world is, perhaps, a little larger?
__________________
No worries
LittleBigMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-06, 01:57 PM   #5
Paul L.
Senior Member
 
Paul L.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Arizona, USA
Bikes: Mercier Corvus (commuter), Fila Taos (MTB), Trek 660(Got frame for free and put my LeMans Centurian components on it)
Posts: 2,601
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleBigMan
No.

Perhaps a little more self-control in the area of "discussion drift." Every thread in the Advocacy and Safety forum does not have to be a continuation of the never-ending debate between pro-VC and anti-VC.

The world is, perhaps, a little larger?

Well spoken, or written as the case may be.
__________________
Sunrise saturday,
I was biking the backroads,
lost in the moment.
Paul L. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-06, 01:59 PM   #6
chipcom 
Infamous Member
Thread Starter
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Posts: 24,366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roody
I believe that all who disagree with chip's point of view should be totally banished from the forum, which will be given the new name of ChipcomForums.net.
uhh, Rood...I participate in those discussions myself, so what does moving it have to do with anyone's viewpoint. VC is politics, move it where it belongs.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
chipcom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-06, 02:15 PM   #7
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
If you don't believe the VC discussions belong here, then don't engage in them here.

Bicycling advocacy, by the way, regardless of your position, is inherently political, due to the fact that the public right-of-way and its management is ultimately in the hands of politicians.

Bicycling safety, while not entirely political as is advocacy, does transcend the political realm just as well. From mandatory helmet laws to light and reflector regulations and liability for defective carbon frames, many of the safety issues are inherently political.

For Chipcom to suggest that VC advocates should be relegated to a political forum because in his opinion we do not advocate for ALL cyclists, while he is being criticized at the same time for doing the same in another thread (the NY CM judge thing), would be laughable, if it didn't make me worry about some recent event getting in the way of neuron firing within his cranium.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-06, 02:18 PM   #8
patc
Dubito ergo sum.
 
patc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Bikes: Bessie.
Posts: 1,735
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I voted 'yes', for two reasons:

First, VC doctrine is inseparable from politics. For example, bike-lane threads become discussions of what bike lanes "encourage" people to think, which then become how that "influences gov't policies" etc. Second, because the VC discussions, and the VCers here, are a very negative influence to the forums.

I realize that VC also includes advocacy and safety issues, and as such VC could equally be discussed in A&S or P&R or both, but I think the forum would be better off banishing VC to P&R for a while. Unfortunately this would probably be too much work for the moderators.

Why not just separate Advocacy from Safety? That could work if the Safety forum had a strict policy allowing no political or advocacy content at all.

Regardless of the solution, I hope the mods do something. If you look at the productive discussions in the other forums - Mechanics, Commuting, Winter Cycling, etc. with the A&S forum, its pretty clear that A&S isn't going anywhere.
patc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-06, 02:34 PM   #9
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
How about, when starting a thread that you don't want to degenerate into a VC discussion, simply putting a request in the OP asking for no VC content in that thread.

I, for one, would honor that.

By the way, about 9 months ago a similar complaint was made about every thread turning into a bike lane debate. While the bike lane issue still comes up from time to time, it's not as dominating as it once was. I think the sticky bike lane thread helped with that.

Maybe we need a Sticky "VC Advocacy" thread?
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-06, 02:48 PM   #10
LCI_Brian
Senior Member
 
LCI_Brian's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: in the hills of Orange, CA
Bikes:
Posts: 1,355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by patc
Why not just separate Advocacy from Safety? That could work if the Safety forum had a strict policy allowing no political or advocacy content at all.
I like that idea. For example, a "safety only" forum could discuss how to safely ride a road with certain facilities, without going into the politics of the presence or lack of said facilities.

But before considering banishing VC discussions, shouldn't there at least be a discussion as to the definition of VC?
__________________
-- I speak for myself only, not LAB or any other organization of which I am a member.
LCI_Brian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-06, 02:57 PM   #11
spandexwarrior
Senior Member
 
spandexwarrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Don't ask
Bikes: Felt F80, Cannondale F400
Posts: 166
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think that the VC discussion should be moved to its own column on the front page of the website like BMX; VC discussion should not necessarily be in P&R. The reason I think it is a good idea to move VC discussions is that VC advocates seem to believe that their method of cycling will cure all ills cyclists face and this is patently false. While I conceed that riding in a predictable manner does help the cause of cycling, the thinking this alone will magically cure antipathy towards cyclists seems misguided. Also, VC discussion in this advocacy forum elicits heated debates usually only seen in discussions of religion or politics. I think the temptation for both sides of the issue to flame is too great, and we get these multipage threads of people arguing over VC, while more important topics get thrown to the wayside. I'm not saying it is wrong to discuss VC- all approaches to cycling and advocacy should be explored. It is just that some people are so extreme in their views, that it really irritates some of the other posters.
spandexwarrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-06, 03:03 PM   #12
patc
Dubito ergo sum.
 
patc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Bikes: Bessie.
Posts: 1,735
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LCI_Brian
But before considering banishing VC discussions, shouldn't there at least be a discussion as to the definition of VC?
Haven't we already done that?!?
patc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-06, 03:28 PM   #13
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 23,860
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LCI_Brian
I like that idea. For example, a "safety only" forum could discuss how to safely ride a road with certain facilities, without going into the politics of the presence or lack of said facilities.

But before considering banishing VC discussions, shouldn't there at least be a discussion as to the definition of VC?
Not banished; just placed in a more appropriate forum, consistent with the viewpoints of those who enjoy discussions of VC definitions.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-06, 03:45 PM   #14
Brian Ratliff
Senior Member
 
Brian Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Near Portland, OR
Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.
Posts: 10,065
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by patc
Haven't we already done that?!?
Apparently, we are not finished.


I voted to move it because it is a discernable ideological position. We've already proven that we can talk about both safety and advocacy without envoking the "VC position." The methods of vehicular cycling are completely separate from the politics of its advocacy, and those politics are mostly ideological and broad based rather than practical and locally based. There is a definite, discernable agenda to the VC ideologues, no matter what their intentions; and that agenda is to convince people through any means necessary. The element of pursuasion should not be on this forum.

That said, I doubt we can eliminate the VC discussion, since any effort to ban it will bring up arguments about the definition of "VC" from the usual suspects. Like banning porn, I'd suspect. The ol' "know it when I see it, but cannot define it" problem.
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Brian Ratliff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-06, 03:49 PM   #15
LCI_Brian
Senior Member
 
LCI_Brian's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: in the hills of Orange, CA
Bikes:
Posts: 1,355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by patc
Haven't we already done that?!?
I've seen some threads diverge into a discussion of "what is VC". But is there a thread that is devoted just to that?
LCI_Brian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-06, 04:08 PM   #16
LCI_Brian
Senior Member
 
LCI_Brian's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: in the hills of Orange, CA
Bikes:
Posts: 1,355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
I voted to move it because it is a discernable ideological position. We've already proven that we can talk about both safety and advocacy without envoking the "VC position." The methods of vehicular cycling are completely separate from the politics of its advocacy, and those politics are mostly ideological and broad based rather than practical and locally based. There is a definite, discernable agenda to the VC ideologues, no matter what their intentions; and that agenda is to convince people through any means necessary. The element of pursuasion should not be on this forum.
I have always considered "vehicular cycling" to be simply a set of methods and techniques for cycling on public roads. But there are some who consider otherwise. I lay a lot of the blame on John Forester's writings, which intertwine his personal views on advocacy into his writings.

Nevertheless, it can't be denied that many people who have had success using the vehicular cycling techniques are probably going to agree with some of Forester's positions. I agree with some of Forester's advocacy viewpoints and disagree with others. So does that make me a "VC ideologue"?

On the other hand, it could be argued that those who like facilities have a political agenda, whether it be "more butts on bikes" or "reduced car use". So should facilities discussions be moved to P&R, for example?

In addition to a safety forum without advocacy, I like the idea of a VC sticky. It would accomplish the goal of not having every thread degenerate into a VC discussion.
__________________
-- I speak for myself only, not LAB or any other organization of which I am a member.
LCI_Brian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-06, 04:41 PM   #17
patc
Dubito ergo sum.
 
patc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Bikes: Bessie.
Posts: 1,735
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LCI_Brian
I've seen some threads diverge into a discussion of "what is VC". But is there a thread that is devoted just to that?
Not an entire thread devoted to it, no, but I doubt such a thread would be productive. But hey, if you want to start one, knock yourself out.
patc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-06, 04:52 PM   #18
patc
Dubito ergo sum.
 
patc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Bikes: Bessie.
Posts: 1,735
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LCI_Brian
Nevertheless, it can't be denied that many people who have had success using the vehicular cycling techniques are probably going to agree with some of Forester's positions. I agree with some of Forester's advocacy viewpoints and disagree with others. So does that make me a "VC ideologue"?
If you are willing to disagree with some of Forester's and/or VC positions, and are willing to respect the views of others, then you are not a "VC ideologue". Even I agree with some of VC!



Quote:
Originally Posted by LCI_Brian
On the other hand, it could be argued that those who like facilities have a political agenda, whether it be "more butts on bikes" or "reduced car use". So should facilities discussions be moved to P&R, for example?

Many things involve (devolve?) into including politics. IMO the test should be:
- is the discussion more political than otherwise?
- is the discussion productive, keeping in mind the goals/topics of the forum?

So a discussion on bike lanes in the Commuting forum, with the argument that bike lanes may increase the number of commuters, may get political but still be appropriate to the Commuting forum. If that same discussion is about whether "bike lanes = bike ghettos" with no mention of the effect on commuters, then I would say the political aspect outweighs the "Commuting" aspect and the thread should be move and/or closed.

Any moderation decision is a catch-22, of course, and no matter what you do some people will hate you for it. I prefer of more firmly moderated forum, but I know not everyone does. The bottom line may not be what option contributors prefer or what is "best", but how much time moderators have.




Quote:
Originally Posted by LCI_Brian
In addition to a safety forum without advocacy, I like the idea of a VC sticky. It would accomplish the goal of not having every thread degenerate into a VC discussion.
Only if the contributors respect that! Its an easy thing to implement, however, and much less disruptive than splitting forums, so why not try it and see what happens? If it doesn't work the thread can be un-stickied and/or moved later.
patc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-06, 05:44 PM   #19
Brad M
nub
 
Brad M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The Hammer, Ontario
Bikes:
Posts: 264
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Voted yes because this forum rocks when the VC idealogues have left for holidays.
Brad M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-06, 06:53 PM   #20
Brian Ratliff
Senior Member
 
Brian Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Near Portland, OR
Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.
Posts: 10,065
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad M
Voted yes because this forum rocks when the VC idealogues have left for holidays.
Someone had to say it. I agree. Perhaps we can simply all stop responding to VC ideological posts, and simply take on different subjects. We know all of the main player's positions; there is no need to go back for a second serving of "refined argument."
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Brian Ratliff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-06, 07:09 PM   #21
Paul L.
Senior Member
 
Paul L.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Arizona, USA
Bikes: Mercier Corvus (commuter), Fila Taos (MTB), Trek 660(Got frame for free and put my LeMans Centurian components on it)
Posts: 2,601
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
Someone had to say it. I agree. Perhaps we can simply all stop responding to VC ideological posts, and simply take on different subjects. We know all of the main player's positions; there is no need to go back for a second serving of "refined argument."

I shall refrain from stoking the fire.
__________________
Sunrise saturday,
I was biking the backroads,
lost in the moment.
Paul L. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-06, 07:13 PM   #22
LCI_Brian
Senior Member
 
LCI_Brian's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: in the hills of Orange, CA
Bikes:
Posts: 1,355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
+1 to the posts from patc, Brad M, Brian Ratliff, and Paul L.

A while back I had thought of starting a "what is VC" thread, but at that time thought better of it because it could (would?) degenerate into a flame war.
LCI_Brian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-06, 07:18 PM   #23
CPcyclist
Senior Member
 
CPcyclist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wisconsin
Bikes: Lemond Arrivee, Felt F1 Road, Tomac Revolver(full), GT race (hardtail)
Posts: 1,646
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
As said above stop reading the threads you can chose to ignore these threads.

Why not put a VC sticky at the top of the forum and have any further VC thread be locked asap or sent to the trash. go a little further and lock the sticky after a month the open it for a week every other month going forward. this would allow for the discussion without 5 threads at once being about very similar things.
CPcyclist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-06, 07:38 PM   #24
JRA
Senior Member
 
JRA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: St. Louis
Bikes:
Posts: 945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad M
Voted yes because this forum rocks when the VC idealogues have left for holidays.
I'm voting yes for the same reason.
JRA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-06, 07:48 PM   #25
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,790
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 478 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LCI_Brian
I have always considered "vehicular cycling" to be simply a set of methods and techniques for cycling on public roads. But there are some who consider otherwise. I lay a lot of the blame on John Forester's writings, which intertwine his personal views on advocacy into his writings.

Nevertheless, it can't be denied that many people who have had success using the vehicular cycling techniques are probably going to agree with some of Forester's positions. I agree with some of Forester's advocacy viewpoints and disagree with others. So does that make me a "VC ideologue"?

On the other hand, it could be argued that those who like facilities have a political agenda, whether it be "more butts on bikes" or "reduced car use". So should facilities discussions be moved to P&R, for example?

In addition to a safety forum without advocacy, I like the idea of a VC sticky. It would accomplish the goal of not having every thread degenerate into a VC discussion.

+1.

The idea of a VC / EC sticky makes a lot of sense to me. Seems like some time back we had a debate about EC vrs VC vrs vc... Where EC had all the associated Forester Politics associated, VC had much of the anti-BL politics, but had dropped some of the Forester mindset, and vc was just riding according to the laws...
genec is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:21 AM.