Poll: Should VC discussions be moved to P&R?

[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.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

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.

[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.

[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?

[Paul L.]

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. :)

[chipcom]

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.

[Helmet Head]

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.

[patc]

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.

[Helmet Head]

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?

[LCI_Brian]

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?

[spandexwarrior]

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.

[patc]

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?!?
:eek:

[I-Like-To-Bike]

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.

[Brian Ratliff]

Haven't we already done that?!?
:eek:

Apparently, we are not finished.
:rolleyes:

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.

[LCI_Brian]

Haven't we already done that?!?
:eek:
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]

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.

[patc]

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]

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!



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.




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.

[Brad M]

Voted yes because this forum rocks when the VC idealogues have left for holidays.

[Brian Ratliff]

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."

[Paul L.]

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. :)

[LCI_Brian]

+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.

[CPcyclist]

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.

[JRA]

Voted yes because this forum rocks when the VC idealogues have left for holidays.I'm voting yes for the same reason.

[genec]

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]

Voted yes because this forum rocks when the VC idealogues have left for holidays.

I thought it became a bit boring around here... :rolleyes:

[chipcom]

I leave for a couple of hours for a nice ride home on an unusually nice winter day and find that I actually started a productive discussion. Way to go folks. :)

[I-Like-To-Bike]

I leave for a couple of hours for a nice ride home on an unusually nice winter day :)
You ain't kidding. 58º on Jan 12; wore shorts on the ride home today.

[Brian]

Sorry guys, I'm at work. If I read the whole thread, I may lapse into a coma. Should I read it? Has the point been made that not every A&S thread should come down to a VC debate?

[Roody]

+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...
I guess I'm vc then. I do think it's best to follow the rules almost all the time, and I do agree with Serge on most of what he says about lane positioning. It just seems that in most places that's ALLthat is meant by vehicular cycling, but here a few people ON BOTH SIDES have construed the term to mean a lot more than that.

To my way of thinking, most threads here are quite interesting for about the first 30 or 40 posts. Then they too often deteriorate into mind boggling petty details that I am far too stupid to follow, let alone understand. I bail out of most threads when they get to that point.

BTW, I don't think it's fair to lay the blame on either side of the argument, or on any one or two individuals. There's actually plenty of blame to go around! But my solution is not to shut people up or stifle arguments or lock threads or move them to P & R. My solution is just to quit reading the thread when it gets to that point. Sometimes I take a total vacation from this forum for a few hours up to a couple weeks.

[randya]

You forgot the category: "No, absolutely not!"

People go to P&R to get away from all the bicycle BS, and especially the endless VC discussions here.

I might support a new forum category on 'bicycle politics' where all the VC, CM, and other acronyms could go, but I don't know exactly how to effectively separate 'advocacy' from 'bicycle politics.'

We as a community should be trying to reach some kind of consensus on what we collectively want - we could advocate more effectively then - and it will probably be a little bit of everything, based on the overwhelming majority who voted for 'hybrid riding style' in the Ultimate Advocacy Poll. However, IMO, endless long-winded, rhetorical, etc. diatribes and debates like we've been having here lately are unlikely to actually ever get us to an endpoint.

[Brian]

I think I mentioned before something about not letting A&S thread go over 2 pages, or something like that.

[sbhikes]

I think don't move it. Too bad these forum softwares don't let you set how many times someone can post in a day. From the looks of things, some of us are on the BF payroll or something!

I did think things were saner over the holidays, but they were a lot quieter too. I just wish there was a way to bring up more topics and have more camraderie and not see every topic degenerate into center lane positioning blah blah blah bike lanes are death traps blah blah blah.

I like the commuter forum, but it often becomes a bore because all the topics are like "what light should I get?" "what bike should I get?" "do you ride in the rain or snow?"

[Brian]

I think don't move it. Too bad these forum softwares don't let you set how many times someone can post in a day. From the looks of things, some of us are on the BF payroll or something!

No payroll, but you can tell how much someone posts:

sbhikes's Forum Info
Joined 10-04-04
Last Post Facilities for encouraging novice/beginning cyclists
01-13-06 05:25 PM
Total Posts 1,293 (2.77 posts per day)

[budster]

No.

Banishing "VC debates" to P&R would accomplish nothing except ensuring that fewer people were aware of the issues, especially new members of the forums. No one is forced to participate, or read, any thread they don't want to participate in or read now.

Unless someone has some hard facts, the questions are open: what is the best/safest way to ride a bicycle? Should we press for more bike lanes? More generally, what should be the focus of bicycle advocacy? These questions involve politics, but they are not primarily political questions. They are primarily questions of bicycling advocacy and safety.

If the answers were obvious, no one would read or participate in threads discussing these issues. These discussions are lively and occasionally produce new ideas. I do find tiresome the constant rehashing of the same debates, with the same posters making the same arguments/rebuttals, the same unwillingness to compromise -- but that's the nature of human interaction.

[LittleBigMan]

Let's establish a VC forum and call it, "The Leper Colony."

:D (The smiley means I'm joking.)

[Guest]

Personally, I don't think this is going to happen.

Politics is it's own three headed monster. Here's a typical Politics and Religion thread: "Democrats suck!"

Here's a typical A & S thread "How can we influence the local government to give cyclists access to X, Y, and Z?".

Two different issues.

We reserve the Politics and Religion for the political issues that influence world news and events. Sorry, but bike advocacy just doesn't fit that bill. The things you talk about that happen to be politically related that involve cycling is an advocacy issue. That's what drives this forum, so this is most likely where it's going to remain.

The best thing you can do if you don't like to discuss politics in a topic is to steer clear of that thread.

Koffee

Mod

[msheron]

I think any topic one starts as a thread that one has common sense knows will elicit a debate or civil war of opinions should be posted in a "Bilitical" forum (Bicycle POlitics)! The A&S forum should be links to safety classes and legislative bills or proposals for positive or negative impact toward cyclist whether it be local or federal governmental proposals.

All debate or heated argument elicited material has a place to air out between us. Anyone posting incorrectly should be given warning then repeated stupidity should be handled by losening their QR and putting a super slick material on their brake pads since Darwin's theory has yet to take them out of society!

Just my 2 cents!

[sbhikes]

No payroll, but you can tell how much someone posts:

sbhikes's Forum Info
Joined 10-04-04
Last Post Facilities for encouraging novice/beginning cyclists
01-13-06 05:25 PM
Total Posts 1,293 (2.77 posts per day)
Yes I know, that is why I said "some of us are on the BF payroll or something!"

(P.S. HH = 2,694 (9.29 posts per day) and that doesn't count when he went by his real name)

[-=£em in Pa=-]

I say dont move it because I would hate to see the highly
intelligent, thought provoking and always insightful P & R
discussion and friendly social intercourses watered down by
boring, stupid bicycle stuff.
http://deephousepage.com/smilies/all_coholic.gifhttp://deephousepage.com/smilies/wtf.gifhttp://deephousepage.com/smilies/pullhair.gifhttp://deephousepage.com/smilies/poundon.gifhttp://deephousepage.com/smilies/spank2.gif

[Brian]

I think if we keep the politics of VC out of the A&S threads, that would make a big difference. It's the opposite of the Holocuast. Mention VC, and the thread takes a bad turn that never ends.

[Daily Commute]

I think if we keep the politics of VC out of the A&S threads, that would make a big difference. . . .
What exactly does "keeping the politics of VC out of the A&S threads" mean? And would you apply the same principle to anti-VC or non-VC ideas--like advocacy for bike/ped coordinator positions or praise for the striping of bike lanes on 25 mph roads or door zones?

It takes two sides to keep an argument going. The VC'ers are willing to defend their positions. Some of the anti-VC'ers seem to want to assert their positions (for example, praise for a bike lane in a 25 mph downtown area) and then claim that no one should be allowed to say that the facility was a bad idea.