Advocacy & Safety - An "Outsiders" Perspective - Rename the A&S Forum

Years ago, I used to participate somewhat in the A&S forum.

But, reading things lately, I believe the name of the forum should be changed to the "VC Forum."

As I type this, these are the current (first 12) - non-sticky threads and authors:

Take the opposite view - Helmet Head 01-13-06 06:56 AM

Poll: Poll: Should VC discussions be moved to P&R? ( 1 2 ) chipcom 01-13-06 06:36 AM

Sad UK story - jamesdenver 01-13-06 06:27 AM

NY Judge: Group cyclists guilty of impeding traffic ( 1 2 ) sggoodri 01-13-06 06:14 AM

Poll: Better name for vehicular cycling? ( 1 2 3 4 ) - Helmet Head 01-13-06 05:58 AM

Bad drivers - a serious threat? ( 1 2 ) - Helmet Head 01-13-06 05:38 AM

Poll: Did you read Cyclecraft? ( 1 2 ) - Helmet Head 01-13-06 05:19 AM

John Forester on "Freeway history" ( 1 2 ) - Helmet Head 01-13-06 04:55 AM

Free Parking - LittleBigMan 01-13-06 04:38 AM

Bike Forums Manifesto - randya

Is it more dangerous to ride on the road or to hug a bear? Ranger

Who's behind the MVC agenda? Paul L.

Does it seem to you like the discussion is dominated by one topic?

The impression I get when visiting the supposed A&S Forum is that it is truly a VC Forum.

Perhaps a forum name change is in order to suit the topic?

I thought this was the VC forum, thats all that ever seems to be discussed.

Al

I thought this was the VC forum, thats all that ever seems to be discussed.

Al

Exactly - so change the name so that folks will know what to expect with this forum. Perhaps there might be a separate "A&S" Forum.

Or, I read in another thread about a "sticky" where all the VC posts could be placed. That would also be an interesting idea, and might open up the discussion more to other safety issues.

How did that line go, "I was watching a fight, and suddenly a hockey game broke out?"

Paul

Here is another suggestion:

Recently, there were some of us who were interested in an "Indoor Training Support Group."

However, this was not something that the moderators at BFN wanted to support, wanting more of an emphasis on indoor training hardware and techniques. That was fine.

So, I set up a separate listserv just for "support" - where we encourage each other to attain our goals in indoor (and now even outdoor) training.

This group now has 108 members - from many venues, not just BFN (i.e., Bike Journals, USENET and folks just stumbling on it), and has some good materials and resources and files to download and links and polls and a database. It even recently received a positive review on an internet "radio show" - much to my absolute surprise.

Those of you with a high degree of interest in just Vehicular Cycling could set up your own listserv, and could even have a "sticky" in BFN which refers folks to that listserv for VC discussions. You could advertise on other forums. You could have reference files, a links section, and polls and a database or two.

That would take away the seeming dominance of the VC posts in A&S, which, IMHO, may discourage others from broaching other safety and advocacy issues.

Exactly - so change the name so that folks will know what to expect with this forum. Perhaps there might be a separate "A&S" Forum.

The "problem" of a few persistent posters (and their support group me-tooers) steering and dominating all threads in a forum can be found elsewhere. Denver, you should look at your own forum for 50 year + cyclists. It could just as easily, and more accurately be titled - "Seniors Road/Club Cyclists who still Obsess about Logging in Miles and Dropping other Cyclists".

The "problem" of a few persistent posters (and their support group me-tooers) steering and dominating all threads in a forum can be found elsewhere. Denver, you should look at your own forum for 50 year + cyclists. It could just as easily, and more accurately be titled - "Seniors Road/Club Cyclists who still Obsess about Logging in Miles and Dropping other Cyclists".

1. It is not my "own" forum!

2. I don't believe you are being fair in the slightest about the range of content.

3. If you have those concerns, express them in the 50+ forum, not in the A&S forum.

Here are the first non-sticky 12 topics as I type this:

Poll: Do you use a cycling computer? ( 1 2 ) FarHorizon 01-13-06 08:00 AM

The Cycling Community is Awesome! Digital Gee 01-13-06 06:37 AM

New Ride: Croll
oldcrank 01-13-06 06:25 AM

slipped discs and cycling ( 1 2 )
mongoose 01-12-06 10:44 PM

Winter running vs. cycling?
FarHorizon 01-12-06 09:05 PM

50+rs - Expert Opinions Wanted! (about a tube tear)
DnvrFox 01-12-06 03:18 PM

Beware of Subway!!!
jppe 01-12-06 03:10 PM

they call me Zebra (small new year gift)
marmotte 01-12-06 11:11 AM

Introducing myself...
Raketmensch 01-12-06 06:17 AM

Thyroid Surgery
Hawkgrove 01-12-06 12:05 AM

I don't like recovery days ( 1 2 )
Digital Gee 01-11-06 07:00 PM

1/3 Century on My Trainer
pastorbobnlnh

Obsessed with logging miles and dropping other cyclists. I don't think so!

Well, it's different, but it's like splitting hairs. VC is still a component of Advocacy and Safety, IMHO. I think people just don't want to discuss the politics of cycling. If that is so, I make the same suggestion I did in the other thread- don't read it.

Koffee B.

Mod

Well, it's different, but it's like splitting hairs. VC is still a component of Advocacy and Safety, IMHO. I think people just don't want to discuss the politics of cycling. If that is so, I make the same suggestion I did in the other thread- don't read it.

Koffee B.

Mod

Well, not reading certain threads is certainly an option.

The problem is that when a forum becomes dominated by a single topic, other folks start avoiding it in general, and then the forum content gets narrower and narrower, further discouraging additional topics and discussions.

But, so be it!

The MOD has spoken! :D

Sure there is are a lot of VC posts. I personally don’t find them all that stimulating. But why post something non-vc and just see what happens? There are many "sad stories" too, which often are more of an exercise in polemics, rather than "advocacy" or "safety". It really does not take so long to figure out which are VC threads and ignore them.

I figure that A&S is dominated by VC, because less people post on other subjects. So what? If a new vc heading was made, I'd bet that the VC zealots would post to other subjects anyway.

VC has elements, albeit those contested, of both safety and advocacy.

2. I don't believe you are being fair in the slightest about the range of content.

3. If you have those concerns, express them in the 50+ forum, not in the A&S forum.

<SNIP>
Obsessed with logging miles and dropping other cyclists. I don't think so!
Last comment on this list about range of content complaints from an "Outsider" who has own issues elsewhere:

I believe I am quite fair. I too thought an over 50+ forum could be quite interesting but left because the posts were almost exclusively about the concerns of aging club cyclist roadies.

Denver Fox's comments are also quite fair about VC™ overload and VC™ devotees' constant thread hijacking on the A&S are likely to drive away individuals interested in something other than debating how many VC™ angels can dance around a painted line.

Denver, wha definition of VC are you using here?

Most so-called VC threads have little to do with VC, by any reasonable definition of the term. I don't really know what they are about, but it isn't VC.

If you do not want to discuss VC or ILTF does not like Seniors Road/Club Cyclists, then don't read those threads; post a thread you want to discuss and stop whining.

If you do not want to discuss VC or ILTF does not like Seniors Road/Club Cyclists, then don't read those threads; post a thread you want to discuss and stop whining.
Stop making sense!

Look at the number of views on those VC threads, and the number of replies. I guess somebody's reading them.

OMG, ILTB went and got himself an avatar! Even he can be assimilated! :eek:

OMG, ILTB went and got himself an avatar! Even he can be assimilated! :eek:
Yes. Next I might add wacky signatures to demonstate how kultured I is.

Look at the number of views on those VC threads, and the number of replies. I guess somebody's reading them.But what if "VC" really means Virtual Contributors, a platoon of unreal posters programmed by the Great Satin (i.e., the Big Weaver) himself? :D

If you look more carefully, you notice that the forum is really dominated by a person as much as any specific topic. I read the forum daily, and have concluded something different. There are two dominant trains of thought here, and they should not be lumped together. From the safety standpoint, discussions center around what we can do to be more safe when we ride. From an advocacy standpoint, discussions center around what we can do to force others to be more safe around us while we ride. One view takes on responsibility, the other assigns it. Most everything else in this particular forum eventually filters down to an arguement over which of those two views is correct.


Years ago, I used to participate somewhat in the A&S forum.

But, reading things lately, I believe the name of the forum should be changed to the "VC Forum."

As I type this, these are the current (first 12) - non-sticky threads and authors:

Take the opposite view - Helmet Head 01-13-06 06:56 AM

Poll: Poll: Should VC discussions be moved to P&R? ( 1 2 ) chipcom 01-13-06 06:36 AM

Sad UK story - jamesdenver 01-13-06 06:27 AM

NY Judge: Group cyclists guilty of impeding traffic ( 1 2 ) sggoodri 01-13-06 06:14 AM

Poll: Better name for vehicular cycling? ( 1 2 3 4 ) - Helmet Head 01-13-06 05:58 AM

Bad drivers - a serious threat? ( 1 2 ) - Helmet Head 01-13-06 05:38 AM

Poll: Did you read Cyclecraft? ( 1 2 ) - Helmet Head 01-13-06 05:19 AM

John Forester on "Freeway history" ( 1 2 ) - Helmet Head 01-13-06 04:55 AM

Free Parking - LittleBigMan 01-13-06 04:38 AM

Bike Forums Manifesto - randya

Is it more dangerous to ride on the road or to hug a bear? Ranger

Who's behind the MVC agenda? Paul L.

Does it seem to you like the discussion is dominated by one topic?

The impression I get when visiting the supposed A&S Forum is that it is truly a VC Forum.

Perhaps a forum name change is in order to suit the topic?

There are two dominant trains of thought here, and they should not be lumped together. From the safety standpoint, discussions center around what we can do to be more safe when we ride. From an advocacy standpoint, discussions center around what we can do to force others to be more safe around us while we ride. One view takes on responsibility, the other assigns it.
Tom,

Which view is which, from your perspective?

In particular, would you consider my promoting vehicular cycling in order to facilitate cycling safety through changes in cyclists' behavior as taking on responsibility, or assigning it?

Technically, I suppose you could say I'm assigning responsibility to the cyclists. But from my own perspective as a cyclist, I take on responsibility for my own safety, and I'm advocating that other cyclists do the same, rather than assigning the responsibility of their safety to non-cyclists (be it to have motorists be assigned the responsibility of looking out for cyclists passing them dangerously on the right in the rightmost lane at an intersection approach, or assigning responsibility to urban planners and the public to build and finance what are believed to be "safe" facilities for cycling).

If you do not want to discuss VC or ILTF does not like Seniors Road/Club Cyclists, then don't read those threads; post a thread you want to discuss and stop whining.

I did and you posted to it and it is being thoroughly discussed as you read this!

:D :) :D

I find your view to be taking on responsibility as a cyclist. You are seeing a problem and addressing it through your own actions and advocating that others do the same. This is, in my opinion, the best approach. You can control your behavior, you cannot control that of others. In my view, the "advocates" that support CM and riding with the wind are not taking on the responsibility of their own safety. They are trying to influence the behavior of others through negative reenforcement. As we have witnessed, this rarely works with children or dogs, so why should we expect it to work with drivers?


Tom,

Which view is which, from your perspective?

In particular, would you consider my promoting vehicular cycling in order to facilitate cycling safety through changes in cyclists' behavior as taking on responsibility, or assigning it?

Technically, I suppose you could say I'm assigning responsibility to the cyclists. But from my own perspective as a cyclist, I take on responsibility for my own safety, and I'm advocating that other cyclists do the same, rather than assigning the responsibility of their safety to non-cyclists (be it to have motorists be assigned the responsibility of looking out for cyclists passing them dangerously on the right in the rightmost lane at an intersection approach, or assigning responsibility to urban planners and the public to build and finance what are believed to be "safe" facilities for cycling).

If you look more carefully, you notice that the forum is really dominated by a person as much as any specific topic. I read the forum daily, and have concluded something different. There are two dominant trains of thought here, and they should not be lumped together. From the safety standpoint, discussions center around what we can do to be more safe when we ride. From an advocacy standpoint, discussions center around what we can do to force others to be more safe around us while we ride. One view takes on responsibility, the other assigns it. Most everything else in this particular forum eventually filters down to an arguement over which of those two views is correct.

It still seems like splitting hairs. Once again, DON'T READ if you don't like the topic of discussion.

Koffee

It still seems like splitting hairs. Once again, DON'T READ if you don't like the topic of discussion.

Koffee

I don't dislike the topic. I dislike the viewpoint that someone else is more responsible for my safety than I am, and that somehow I can get people to be more careful around me by pissing them off.

That's about the same thing in my book. It's still splitting hairs. Whatever you dislike, just don't read if you have a dislike for the topic, whether it's the topic or the manner in which it's introduced.

Koffee

A lot of discussions about bicycle safety in the A&S Forum become dominated with an overwhelming word count of sophistic debates of semantics and logic, and nothing whatsoever to do with bicycling.

A problem with many of the A&S threads is when they degenerate into a semantics and logic endurance contest instead of reasoned debate.

There are attempts by some to legitimize inaccurate, improper recommendations of cycling method disguised as 'the only way.'
For example, using the center of the lane as a 'default' riding position. There are several schools of thought on this, and there is no 'right way.'

However, in reading A&S threads, the copious verbage and dismissal of others' methodology by semantic battles dilutes other poster's points of view.

Maybe a self policing of personal politics would make A&S more readable to everyone.
When a thread becomes a pissing match about semantics, logic, and filled with sophistry, lack of effective communication follows.

Some people (myself included) need to learn to respect other's opinions and intent, and reign in the 'might makes right' style of copious, sophistic wordplay.

That's about the same thing in my book. It's still splitting hairs. Whatever you dislike, just don't read if you have a dislike for the topic, whether it's the topic or the manner in which it's introduced.

Koffee

You're right. I'll change my approach so that I never read anything I dislike or disagree with. It'll be a wonderful world if we all do this because we'll all think that everyone agrees with our own viewpoint. Surely with all the new ideas flourishing, our world will be a better place.

</sarcasm>

What is the point of having a forum if not for discussion of opposing viewpoints? While I feel that CM rides are generally counter-productive to the cause of advancing the public view of cyclists, that doesn't mean that I should avoid discussions on CM. Maybe I'll read something that softens or even changes my view. Maybe I'll add something arrogant that causes someone to better explain their view. Maybe I'll just add gasoline to the fire. In any case I don't understand how telling someone not to read an opposing viewpoint helps, nor do I understand how the difference between taking on responsibility and assigning it to someone else is splitting hairs.

It still seems like splitting hairs. Once again, DON'T READ if you don't like the topic of discussion.

Ok, rant mode on. Skip the following if you don't want to read a long, bitter rant. I'm going to indulge here, so you've been warned.


I AM SICK OF HEARING THAT "JUST DON'T READ IT" BS!!!!! :mad:

First, its damn patronizing. I'll decide what's a problem for me, thanks, if you don't agree you also don't need to belittle it.

Second, you make it sound like I can just open a forum, and the threads I shouldn't read are magically marked for me. Sorry, it doesn't work that way, I have to waste my time opening each thread before I can know if it contains VC dogma or not. (Yes, of course a few have appropriate titles, most don't).

Third, the issue is not only the forum being clogged by VC dogma discussion, but also (and much more so) how often those discussions take over threads. Sure, I can "just not read", but does that restore the topic? No, of course not. Once the discussion has been sufficiently high jacked, the topic is gone. Sorry posters, your issue was irrelevant. Heck, I had two people on my 'ignore' list for a while, and found that it solved NONE of the problems!

"Just don't read it" is a cop-out. If you don't care, then keep your patronizing comment to yourself. If you approve of the VC stuff, say so.

End of rant.

Koffee - don't take this too personally, you're not the only one to make this comment, I just used your post as a starting point. Seriously, telling people "just don't read those posts" is like telling people to just "not walk on the ice" in winter. Sounds easy, but in practise it doesn't work. No one forces me to reply - I'm not saying they are - but there is no magical way for me to read none of the tiresome stuff I would rather not read.

PS- amusingly I am currently contributing to VC discussion which I find, for once, not a complete waste of time.

Perhaps a VC subforum so that the rants don't cross-contaminate?

"A lot of discussions about bicycle safety in the A&S Forum become dominated with an overwhelming word count of sophistic debates of semantics and logic, and nothing whatsoever to do with bicycling."

Just cruising through this forum for the first time. Who's helmet head, what is VC? Then

""There are two dominant trains of thought here, and they should not be lumped together. From the safety standpoint, discussions center around what we can do to be more safe when we ride. From an advocacy standpoint, discussions center around what we can do to force others to be more safe around us while we ride. One view takes on responsibility, the other assigns it."

Tom,

Which view is which, from your perspective?

In particular, would you consider my promoting vehicular cycling in order to facilitate cycling safety through changes in cyclists' behavior as taking on responsibility, or assigning it?"

Now if that wasn't perfectly obvious before HH got there I don't know what would be . Instantly personalizes the issue then goes theortical. Not since the first day of my Philosophy degree!

"Contaminate".... that's a pretty funny word.

I think you guys are going to have to use words like "co-exist" instead. ;)

Koffee

Frankly, I'm with DnvrFox on this one. A year or more ago, this forum was both interesting and useful. Since that time, one particular personality has come to dominate it. Each and every thread is quickly converted into an excuse to reiterate his personal philosophy, regardless of the original content of that thread or of the utility of that philosophy to the subject at hand. When people object to the thread hijacks, he'll start a rash of polls in which we are asked to vote on the question of whether his behavior is acceptable. In short, where once we had a community of individuals concerned about cyclist rights and safety, we now have a cult of personality in which newcomers can be indoctrinated with one man's inflexible (and largely inapplicable) Philosophy of Vehicular Cycling. No information is exchanged; no meaningful discussion is possible. My vote? Shove A&S behind the wall with P&R - it's all about politics and religion now anyway.

It seems like some of the talk about banning VC comes from people who want to hear from people who support their point of view.

If you want to put VC in a sub forum or a different list-serv, fine. Just do the same with any positive references to bike lanes, MUP's, invisible cycling, and bike/ped coordinators. Of course, if we did that, A&S would be left with discussions of lighting and CM. We couldn't even discuss what might have prevented any given auto-car accident because that could devolve into a discussion of VC, invisible cycling, bike lanes, MUP's or bike/ped coordinators.