Forum etiquette - cyclist death threads

[Helmet Head]

The jack-ass poster wouldn't have life, much less grow into a 600 pound gorilla, if you wouldn't give it to him so freely.
If he was ignored, he would go away, or change his tactics.

I did not vote, as I don't vote in HH generated polls.

I have not been on A&S for a while, but I see it hasn't changed a bit......probably never will.
If it wasn't HH there would just be someone else frosting your nuggets.
Its part and parcel to forums like this, grow up and deal with it.
To confirm, if I got no feedback on this forum in response to the ideas that I share, then this forum would have no value to me, and I would stop posting.

[rando]

it's a challenge, ladies and gentlemen!

[patc]

The jack-ass poster wouldn't have life, much less grow into a 600 pound gorilla, if you wouldn't give it to him so freely.
If he was ignored, he would go away, or change his tactics.

I did not vote, as I don't vote in HH generated polls.

I have not been on A&S for a while, but I see it hasn't changed a bit......probably never will.
If it wasn't HH there would just be someone else frosting your nuggets.
Its part and parcel to forums like this, grow up and deal with it.

Wow, you responded to a post from NINE months ago, and that's the best you could come up with?

[dobber]

The results of this poll seem to have been forgotten, so I'm bumping this thread/poll.

Your assuming we cared to remember

[Blue Order]

HH, you confuse baseless speculation on "facts" you fabricated with commenting on safety when a cyclist dies. I don't think anybody here would object to genuine discussions of safety.

With perhaps one or two exceptions, EVERYBODY here objects to your insensitive, cyclist-blaming barrage of words based on your manufactured "facts."

[kjmillig]

After reading all the ranting on this thread, I've come to at least one conclusion: Chocolate.

[BLIZZ]

Wow, you responded to a post from NINE months ago, and that's the best you could come up with?

Yeah......pretty lame.... I know.
But also sad how in NINE months all the hand wringing and name calling has changed nothing for the good.
That was my point.
It can't all be blamed on one person.

[patc]

Yeah......pretty lame.... I know.
But also sad how in NINE months all the hand wringing and name calling has changed nothing for the good.
That was my point.
It can't all be blamed on one person.

No, it can't all be blamed on one person (the one in this case I have long since put on my ignore list). The point of my post, however, was that sometimes it IS an individual who causes the problems, and regardless of the contributions of others to the problem, the user in question should be dealt with by the mods.

In a public forum, the "just ignore him" thing becomes pointless - even if only a handful of people do not ignore the problem poster, threads and conversations can be disrupted.

[MSPD]

I can't honestly remember how I voted on this poll. I try to live my life believing in the general goodness, tact and decency of people, especially my friends in cycling communities, so I quite possibly could have voted with the "majority". I'm not quite sure it matters which way I voted -- the meaning behind the vote is what I care about.

I would like my vote to be understood clearly. Of course it is appropriate, in a cycling advocacy and safety forum, to discuss and speculate about the circumstances of an accident, near accident, unusual event or other event with potential learning value to help save the lives of others.

Just as I feel that in America, it's perfectly acceptable to use events to discuss and speculate about our country's level of tolerance for homosexuality and the outcomes of our collective social norms.

HOWEVER, it is the MANNER in which the discussion is held, and the respectfulness of the conversation that matters.

While it is within the rights of the Westboro Baptist Church to lift a photo of a dead soldier's face as an example of God's hatred of and punishment for America's tolerance for homosexuality, do we really want that manner of discussion ruling the way we conduct our lives?

Do we really want to reconsider our cycling philosophy and behavior based upon empty, baseless CONCLUSIONS made in "discussing and speculating" the perceived wrongdoing of a dead father, son, friend, and/or clubmate during that person's grieving period?

I say again, of course it is appropriate, in a cycling advocacy and safety forum, to discuss and speculate about the circumstances of an accident, near accident, unusual event or other event with potential learning value to help save the lives of others.

But when you begin to draw conclusions that cannot be drawn, or you *******ize speculation and unconfirmed facts in a way that victimizes a whole new set of people, or when "discussion and speculation" devolves into proselytism and ceaseless browbeating, it becomes CLEARLY inappropriate.

If voting, "No. it is inappropriate and/or disrespectful to speculate about what may have caused a fatal crash." is the only way of delivering that message to the original poster, then I would like to ensure that my vote, whatever it was, is changed to/confirmed as such.

[Helmet Head]

I can't honestly remember how I voted on this poll. I try to live my life believing in the general goodness, tact and decency of people, especially my friends in cycling communities, so I quite possibly could have voted with the "majority". I'm not quite sure it matters which way I voted -- the meaning behind the vote is what I care about.

I would like my vote to be understood clearly. Of course it is appropriate, in a cycling advocacy and safety forum, to discuss and speculate about the circumstances of an accident, near accident, unusual event or other event with potential learning value to help save the lives of others.

Just as I feel that in America, it's perfectly acceptable to use events to discuss and speculate about our country's level of tolerance for homosexuality and the outcomes of our collective social norms.

HOWEVER, it is the MANNER in which the discussion is held, and the respectfulness of the conversation that matters.

While it is within the rights of the Westboro Baptist Church to lift a photo of a dead soldier's face as an example of God's hatred of and punishment for America's tolerance for homosexuality, do we really want that manner of discussion ruling the way we conduct our lives?

Do we really want to reconsider our cycling philosophy and behavior based upon empty, baseless CONCLUSIONS made in "discussing and speculating" the perceived wrongdoing of a dead father, son, friend, and/or clubmate during that person's grieving period?

I say again, of course it is appropriate, in a cycling advocacy and safety forum, to discuss and speculate about the circumstances of an accident, near accident, unusual event or other event with potential learning value to help save the lives of others.

But when you begin to draw conclusions that cannot be drawn, or you *******ize speculation and unconfirmed facts in a way that victimizes a whole new set of people, or when "discussion and speculation" devolves into proselytism and ceaseless browbeating, it becomes CLEARLY inappropriate.

If voting, "No. it is inappropriate and/or disrespectful to speculate about what may have caused a fatal crash." is the only way of delivering that message to the original poster, then I would like to ensure that my vote, whatever it was, is changed to/confirmed as such.
:beer:

Well said.

Obviously, the problem is differences of opinion about what constitutes crossing the line over into the area of "begin to draw conclusions that cannot be drawn, or you *******ize speculation and unconfirmed facts in a way that victimizes a whole new set of people". For example, I believe I don't cross that line, but others clearly believe that I do, challenge me accordingly, and the result of that debate is "'discussion and speculation' [that] devolves into proselytism and ceaseless browbeating". Certainly I am at least partially responsible for that result, and I'll try to improve.

[ChezJfrey]

After reading all the ranting on this thread, I've come to at least one conclusion: Chocolate.

Who's up for some cake (pie's been played out ;))?

[Laika]

I'd like to make an attempt to be an honest broker here, and offer a suggestion.

Clearly, there's a significant group who feel that post-incident tactical analysis is worthwhile. I'd like to suggest the following:

Unless the cycling techniques or tactics of the victim of a fatal collision are specifically mentioned in the initial post by the original poster, if you have an interest in discussing that topic, post a separate thread in the VC subforum about it. Label it clearly, maybe with something like "TACTICAL ANALYSIS: Fatal Accident on MainStreet, Anytown, USA." And then limit your post in the original thread to an invitation with a link so that all interested parties can join that discussion if they so wish.

My 2¢.

[Blue Order]

I'd like to make an attempt to be an honest broker here, and offer a suggestion.

Clearly, there's a significant group who feel that post-incident tactical analysis is worthwhile. I'd like to suggest the following:

Unless the cycling techniques or tactics of the victim of a fatal collision are specifically mentioned in the initial post by the original post, if you have an interest in discussing that topic, post a separate thread in the VC subforum about it. Label it clearly, maybe with something like "TACTICAL ANALYSIS: Fatal Accident on MainStreet, Anytown, USA." And then limit your post in the original thread to an invitation with a link so that all interested parties can join that discussion if they so wish.

My 2¢.Good suggestion.

I would add that if the original story clearly provides details, for example, "the cyclist was wearing dark clothing, riding against traffic, and had no lights", then it would be appropriate to comment on the obvious safety problems.

On the other hand, if the original story only says "cyclist was killed," it's inappropriate to launch into an analysis of what the cyclist did to cause the accident. It should be in a separate thread. And because these threads always devolve into Helmet Head's ridiculous analyses of speculation presented as "fact," the cyclist's name or other identifying details (date of accident, location of accident) should not be used.

[kemmer]

:beer:
For example, I believe I don't cross that line, but others clearly believe that I do, challenge me accordingly, and the result of that debate is "'discussion and speculation' [that] devolves into proselytism and ceaseless browbeating". Certainly I am at least partially responsible for that result, and I'll try to improve.

This is why I trashed a dozen or so posts in a recent thread. (that's why you bumped this poll, right?) That discussion had devolved into "proselytism and ceaseless browbeating". You'll notice that I did not delete any of the posts speculating on the effectiveness of using a mirror, the level of protection provided by trailers, driver competency testing or any of the other (semi)relevant discussions. In fact I participated in those discussions. I think most of us, including you from what you just said, would agree with what MSPD said; it's the manner in which the discussion is held that counts.

Laika, I really like your suggestion. I will always be happy to move posts after the fact too, so if a discussion has begun in a thread and you'd like to see it in a thread of it's own, I can move the posts and add a link to the new thread.

[kemmer]

Who's up for some cake (pie's been played out ;))?

Bite your tongue. Pie is NEVER played out.

[Blue Order]

Good suggestion.

I would add that if the original story clearly provides details, for example, "the cyclist was wearing dark clothing, riding against traffic, and had no lights", then it would be appropriate to comment on the obvious safety problems.

On the other hand, if the original story only says "cyclist was killed," it's inappropriate to launch into an analysis of what the cyclist did to cause the accident. It should be in a separate thread. And because these threads always devolve into Helmet Head's ridiculous analyses of speculation presented as "fact," the cyclist's name or other identifying details (date of accident, location of accident) should not be used.Actually, upon thinking about it, I've changed my mind. Any tactical analysis thread must have a link to the original news story.

You know, just so we all know when "facts" are being invented to support the desired conclusion.

[Tom Stormcrowe]

Actually, upon thinking about it, I've changed my mind. Any tactical analysis thread must have a link to the original news story.

You know, just so we all know when "facts" are being invented to support the desired conclusion.
See here: Tactical analysis thread, stickied and up.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=309954

[Tom Stormcrowe]

There is also a cyclist memorial thread now stickied here in this forum

[Helmet Head]

Apparently, it's time to remind people again that a majority (67) of a large number of respondents (114) in this forum voted that it was appropriate to speculate about crash causes in threads about cyclist deaths. That was probably the most controversial thing I ever did in this forum with respect to what was considered "disruptive".

I'm raising this issue again because of this recent discussion:



I don't think of it is as war, to the contrary. The purpose of complying with rules is to induce peace, not war. The rules in this case are the forum guidelines, and if I slip, by all means report me.

But, for the sake of the moderators, and to comply with the guidelines (treating fellow members with respect), I would ask that you first try to resolve any issues directly with me (or whoever the poster is of whatever post you feel is out of compliance).

And, for the record, I did not ask simply to be told if someone thinks I'm diminishing the quality of this forum. What I wrote was:


if any of you feel I'm violating any of the guidelines, or doing anything else to diminish the quality of this forum, please let me know.

Specifically, please let me (not everyone, thus please use PM) know if I'm doing anything to diminish the quality of this forum, and, of course, what it is you think I'm doing. After trying that, if you're not satisfied, then, yes, please get the others and ultimately the mods (if forum guidelines are violated) involved.
show some humility, dude, you're a total f***ing hypocrite when it comes to the forum guidelines. The only reason there is even a separate VC subforum is because you were completely disrupting almost every thread in A&S with your VC BS before this subforum was created especially for you. You're lucky you weren't permanently banned years ago, I really don't see what your contribution is around here - besides your oversized ego - that the mods were so kind as to let you stay.

For the record, I was never even warned by any mods about any of my allegedly disruptive behavior in A&S prior to the creation of the VC subforum. Here, by the way, is the disruption guideline:


Posts which intend to disrupt the topic of conversation or steer the topic away from the focus of the forum and related news. Disruption can include harassment, multiple user profiles, multiple posting of the same post and posting completely off topic messages.


None of my posts were intended "to disrupt the topic of conversation or steer the topic away from the focus of the forum and related news." You and a few others may have considered my posts speculating about causes and promoting anti-crash habits and techniques accordingly in threads about cyclist deaths to be "completely off topic messages", but others disagreed (and pardon me for seeking to save the lives we still have with us). This question was so controversial we even had a poll about whether it was appropriate to post in that manner in such threads, and the majority (67 out of 114) agreed with me. Link (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=228712). But those who disagreed caused enough of a ruckus when they didn't get their way that the mods decided to create a VC subforum.

This kind of personal attack and dredging up of the past is not only wrong and totally uncalled for, but in blatant violation of the guidelines, disruptive, disrespectful, insulting and not conducive to a pleasant place to discuss bicycling. Please stop. Enough already.

[Allister]

Can't you even keep your drivel contained to the thread it stared in?

[KrisPistofferson]

This thread was initially started because Serge used to spam threads about 12 year old cyclists being killed with posts about whether or not they should have been using new-and-improved Powerweave, and basically attempting to turn the thread into his own VC soapbox. Since Serge has no discernably human emotions it was always baffling for him when people would get upset.

Now he is resurrecting this thread in an attempt to "prove a point" made in another thread, quite possibly in another forum entirely. I would use the roll eyes emoticon, but it really would not convey how I feel about this.

[Allister]

Now he is resurrecting this thread in an attempt to "prove a point" made in another thread, quite possibly in another forum entirely. I would use the roll eyes emoticon, but it really would not convey how I feel about this.

Not the first time he's done it either, nor probably the last.

[Tom Stormcrowe]

Topic closed