rando

is it possible for all of us (VC, Adaptive cyclists, Pro-facilities, anti-facilities, everything else) to get along and advocate for all cyclists, of every stripe (heh) and preference?

I think it is, but maybe I'm in the minority here.

IS there common ground?

or do our differences divide us so much that we will never be able to have a united front?

joejack951

There is common ground. Most, if not all, cyclists agree that wider lanes that reduce passing friction between faster and slower moving traffic (usually motorists and cyclists respectively) are a plus for cycling. The majority of the arguments stem from how to treat that space.

I personally think it's less confusing and less restricting when that space is left as bare pavement; others disagree.

deputyjones

I think so. IMHO, it is not the differences as much as the ways in which they are espoused and argued and the level of respect given to other forum members. HERE, we are all equals regardless of what any one member might think.

Helmet Head

Yeah, that's the common ground, but it's relatively minimal given the overall landscape...

For vehicular cyclists, the main priority, by far, is protection of our rights to use the roads while acting as vehicle drivers, and advocating for acceptance of that right.

Advocating for extra space to make it easier for faster traffic to pass us is a relatively low priority for most vehicular cyclists.

Advocating for more cyclists is also a relatively low priority, particularly considering that more cyclists probably means more cyclists doing stupid stuff out there, and making acceptance of cyclists on roadways less tolerable for many, and seem more dangerous that it is.

For other cyclists the main priorities seem to be obtaining as much segregated-from-motorists space for cyclists as possible, and encouraging anyone and everyone to get on their bicycle, regardless of their ability/knowledge on how to do it reasonably and safely.

I used to be more optimistic about middle ground, but am less so today.

By the way, the lack of middle ground is probably why CA has two advocacy organizations:

• CABO (cabobike.org) for the vehicular cyclists
• CBC (calbike.org) for the "bike" advocates

There is some overlap, but most of what they do is independent of the other.

The reason bike lanes are such a heated issue is because they meet the priorities of the "bike" advocates so well, and are the anathema of vc priorities.

Bekologist

hh, you forget a vehicular cyclist can use a bike lane, dude! why are you self proclaimed VC so adamant in misrepresenting vehicular cycling that way?

vehicular cyclists can use and embrace bike lanes, mr. head.

chipcom 

There is plenty of common ground shared between everyone but the extremists from respective 'sides' (and I believe there are more than just two sides) who refuse to compromise and attempt to disrupt and derail any attempts by moderates to do so. The only way to overcome this is for moderates (those willing to compromise) to come together and hammer out an agreement, rejecting attempts by the extremists to stop the process though flame-baiting, disruption, intimidation, blackmail, filibuster and scare tactics.

Many attempts have been made to do this in A&S and all have been disrupted and derailed into flamefests. IMO one step towards making compromise possible was the creation of the vc subforum, which theoreticaly will keep those heated debates out of the main forum, allowing moderates to attempt compromise without disruption by at least ONE SIDE - we'll need to self-police the others, invoking the mods as needed. The rest will require effort on our part:

1. Do not get baited into vc debates that will get a thread moved.
2. Do not get baited or bait others into flamefests that will get a thread moved.
3. Resist the urge to respond to posts that attempt to accomplish any of the above, by anyone.
4. Try to be respectful of others opinions, even if you do not agree. If you have a problem, explain it from your perspective, do not belittle theirs.
5. Accept that nothing is sacred, everything is on the table and that compromise means that the items agreed to may not be perfect.
6. Don't get bogged down looking or asking for facts if good data simply does not exist.
7. Have a sense of humor and a thick skin. Reasoned debate is not always pretty.

Number 3 is the hardest...Lord knows most of us, especially me, seem to not be able to just ignore the BS and continue with an otherwise productive discussion. I'll commit to doing my best not to continue this weakness right here and now...who else wants to make that commitment? This thread can be the 'record' to hold us to our commitment.

Next step from there would be to identify a specific goal and begin a thread to begin hammering out an agreement, or perhaps to hash out ground rules, since I am obviously not dictating anything.

kalliergo 

When will you be adopting this practice yourself, Chip?

randya

Chip, you've had some governing experience, I think you should take a stab at drafting a resolution, complete with a section of whereas's and therefore be it resolved's, that spells out the agreements and disagreements between the VCers and the rest of us, and which concludes with some concrete resolutions in which we can all agree to what we have in common and gives some direction towards addressing what we still don't know and/or disagree on. Then maybe we can put all this idiocy to rest and move on in a positive fashion.

randya

As soon as you lose the arrogant a-hole attitude, my dear Kal.

deputyjones

Seriously, way to snap the olive branch dude.

I am in Chip

randya

Sorry, but I'm going to call it like I see it. And Kal deserves to get called on his attitude.

kalliergo 

Chip's "olive branch" will be meaningful when his nasty, assaultive behavior changes. Not before.

bigpedaler

I'm with ya there, chip.
the longer we can keep the minutae of the vc debate out of here, the better off we'll all be...after all, this thread is all about finding a way to come together.
'they' say the devil is in the details...i vote we poke that bad boy in the kiester until he runs for it. keep it positive. no labels, no divisiveness. lower the respective flags and admit that we all have ONE thing in common -- a love for pedaling.

so, we have it before us -- how do we keep our pedaling addiction a worthwhile and accepted practice on the big bad mean streeets?

edd-you-kay-shun!!

the leadfeet need to be taught that we belong, too, and their agenda of re-creating NASCAR or Formula 1 on the city thoroughfare isn't in the general interest. (sure, i did it too -- when i was 19! but i grew up!) our fellow pedalers, who may not be as up on propriety as we of more experience, need to be taught that wrong-way riding, driveway-dodging, and acting outside the box don't help us get along with the leadfoot sect.

more rigorous training/testing at the point of licensing? sure -- until you have to pay that extra $$ for your teenager; then, how good is that idea? for some, it's a matter of pay for the license or the latest utility bill. teach 'em in school? we already have an overloaded cluster of teachers, and the school systems are largely preoccupied with meeting the letter of various state laws, all of which affect their funding. parental teaching? how many parents have the time or patience to go THAT much further, and how many recalcitrant teenagers will submit to it?

it's easy to just say, 'they need to do this'; the nuts & bolts of it are a lot harder to fasten together.

kalliergo 

I really don't think you understand, at all, what my attitude is, randya. You just get angry beyond control when I insist on rational argument and refuse to succumb to emotional ploys. That results in the sort of childish attacks that characterize the behavior of the anti-VC members (almost exclusively) of this forum.

randya

I think you're misjudging Chip, and failing to account for your own lousy attitude; anyway, DJ's comment was aimed at me, not Chip; Chip is being good with the olive branch.

randya

There is really nothing rational about the VC position or the arguments used to support it.

kalliergo 

I think that's right. There are some things we can agree on but, for the most part, I believe that facilities advocates are working against my interests as a cyclist (and, unwittingly, against their own).

deputyjones

I don't doubt you are upset at Chip, and maybe even rightfully so (I don't know what about specifically because I quit following the JF thread, and I assume that is where this comes from), but lets not be too over-dramatic by calling his behavior "assaultive".

Assault (from memory)= "An act which places another in a reasonable fear of receiving an immediate battery."

Battery = "A forceful and unwanted touching"

Unless Chip has some cool new technology I am unaware of he could not immediately assault you.

bigpedaler

kal...be the 'bigger person', and don't wait for your own gratification on this.

bigpedaler

you're free to believe that...just as i'm free to believe that you're a JAC. so get past it and work for the greater good, whether it's your particular vision or not.

deputyjones

Sorry, my fault, but I was agreeing with you and my comment was directed at Kal. My apologies for the confusion, but let's all try to get along in this thread either way and check our previous issues with each other at the door, eh?

kalliergo 

Of course I won't work for what you imagine to be "the greater good" when I believe both that it is not and that it is against my interests (and yours). That would be truly irrational.

I'll continue to work vigorously to oppose measures I believe to be ill-conceived.

bigpedaler

start your own thread, then. the door's that way.>>>>

kalliergo 

I think every word I've posted here is exactly on-topic. Perhaps you believe it is off-topic to answer the OP in the negative?

rando

Mkay, seems like there's two definite "no" votes, one from HH, one from Kal.
thanks for your input, guys.