Vehicular Cycling (VC) - How many cyclists are regular VC forum posters?

Just wondering. It's as if a handful of cyclists (who have decent computers) constanty show up here and argue over...you know.

As much as I love what technology offers us, do we really represent a true sample of the cycling community?

I wonder if now we are going to start arguing over what the opinions of those who do not (or cannot) post here would be, if they did/could post, or if their opinions matter... :)

Furthermore, are us "regulars" on A&S even a representative sample of those of us on BF? I'm sure there's a lot of lurkers that don't want to post.

From the number of PMs the moderators receive complaining about A&S and the VC subforum, I would say there there are just a few posters (relatively speaking) and many lurkers (who would like to post but are totally repulsed by the nature and the tone of many of the arguments here).

From the number of PMs the moderators receive complaining about A&S and the VC subforum, I would say there there are just a few posters (relatively speaking) and many lurkers (who would like to post but are totally repulsed by the nature and the tone of many of the arguments here).
We're sort of the unofficial "leper colony" of BF?

:eek:

Suprised?:rolleyes:

As much as I love what technology offers us, do we really represent a true sample of the cycling community?

I don't recall anyone ever arguing that we did represent a true sample of the cycling community.

But I think the answer is, of course not.

-G

From the number of PMs the moderators receive complaining about A&S and the VC subforum, I would say there there are just a few posters (relatively speaking) and many lurkers (who would like to post but are totally repulsed by the nature and the tone of many of the arguments here).

Sounds like the VC subforum should be rated "R".

Suprised?:rolleyes:
Well, yes...at least, the first time I realized it, I was suprised.

Now, I just live with the stigma on a day-to-day basis and try not to look at the dark side. ;)

Actually, my main point was not that we are being shunned by so many potential posters. Boosting participation is not the reason to post, anyway. It's about expressing your views.

I was thinking more along the lines of how a small group of mostly the same faces go round-and-round about the same issues. It's almost like Spring-Summer-Fall-Winter-Spring-Summer... :D

...I'm starting to think we resemble family get togethers where the same stories keep getting recirculated. "Gee, I haven't heard that story, Uncle Bob!" :D

I'm thinking around 12 or so people here. With a core of about 8. Compare that to the number of lurkers who's numbers at any one time number in the 30's and 40's. One poll, I am pretty sure, recieved well over 100 votes, but the same 12 or so people were the only ones posting.

I'm thinking around 12 or so people here. With a core of about 8. Compare that to the number of lurkers who's numbers at any one time number in the 30's and 40's. One poll, I am pretty sure, recieved well over 100 votes, but the same 12 or so people were the only ones posting.

yup, this sub-forum is the P&R of cycling. The only reason I come in here anymore is for entertainment from reading the endless, pointless, circular debate just like the debates over abortion, gun control, etc. because there is NO advocacy going on here.

I have a hunch the majority of cyclists have no idea what VC is, nor any of the other terminology so often tossed around here for that matter. It's likely that most cyclists just hop on their bikes and don't ponder over every excruciatingly subtle little nuance about the experience. They just ride and enjoy it for what it is. Probably have to deal with the occasional a-hole motorist and poor road conditions, but somehow learn to live with it and still have a good time riding their bicycles.

Just a guess, of course I have no statistics to back up any of those statements.

Just a guess, of course I have no statistics to back up any of those statements.

Then god forbid you post that statement in a VC forum thread other then this one :eek:

yup, this sub-forum is the P&R of cycling. The only reason I come in here anymore is for entertainment from reading the endless, pointless, circular debate just like the debates over abortion, gun control, etc. because there is NO advocacy going on here.

What do you mean by advocacy?

I think that there is discussion of relevant issues. But the vast majority of discussion is about the topics that people disagree on.

As much as I love what technology offers us, do we really represent a true sample of the cycling community?
Of course not. Do you think even 1% of the cycling community ever heard of the term "Vehicular Cycling?" Or give a dang what John Forester says or ever said?

IMO, a problem for some on this list (and elsewhere) is that they exclude from their consideration of "the cycling community" anyone and everyone who doesn't fit the profile that they think represents Real Cyclists, usually adult college trained bicycling enthusiasts.


To see just how unrepresentative the BF community can be outside of A&S take a look at the commuting list. How representative do you think the bikes pictured are of the bikes used by by bike commuters who don't fit the profile of bicycling enthusiasts and club cyclists who happen to commute.

Read the responses when people ask if the other BF commuters wear a helmet, cycling gloves, cycling shorts, or most telling - bike shoes that attach to the pedals. Nothing wrong with any of those things but the percentages seem all out of whack when looking at the so-called "kit" of the commuting cyclists on city streets. And of course doesn't even remotely represent the appearance or equipment usage of the largest commuting populations in the US - youth, low income workers and college students.

count the number of responses to any poll in this section and you will have your answer. Based on zeytoun's recent poll, that number is less than two dozen.

Just wondering. It's as if a handful of cyclists (who have decent computers) constanty show up here and argue over...you know.

As much as I love what technology offers us, do we really represent a true sample of the cycling community?

I wonder if now we are going to start arguing over what the opinions of those who do not (or cannot) post here would be, if they did/could post, or if their opinions matter... :)

It is obvious that this group, both those who post and those who only lurk, is not representative of cyclists.

However, it might well be more reasonably considered to be representative of those who think about the issues involved in bicycle transportation and who are active in their communities. I have not seen any posting by people who are active bicycle planners, and one might consider this to be a serious deficit, but I disagree. I disagree because I defined the subject as thinking about the issues involved in bicycle transportation, and I see precious little thought in the bicycle planning field. Such persons simply believe the current superstition and carry it out according to the official instructions for doing so, without considering what they should be doing instead.

We here have a serious discussion of the real issues regarding bicycle transportation, at least in the American context. I think that it is reasonable to say that the content of these discussions represents the best thinking in the field. Bicycle transportation is so low on both the intellectual and the professional scales that it has been impossible to produce a technical society with journal to suit. There have been several tries at a technical journal over the years, and each has failed from lack of interest in the form of money. I have tried to form a technical society several times, or to join the efforts of others to do so, and each of these attempts has failed. So there it is.

In a way, these discussions depict today's foremost thoughts on bicycle transportation, and that constitutes knowledge, which is valuable.

The above was deliberately written without advancing any conclusion as to the most reasonable conclusions to be drawn from these discussions. Just accept that there has been value in them.

... or most telling - bike shoes that attach to the pedals.

How true.

I come for the entertainment.
However, I have to admit, that I have also learned a lot.
Sometimes it takes a lot of filtering to find that nugget of gold info, but it is there, hidden away in some of the threads.
The other thing I wonder, is when do these people ever ride their bikes or have any resemblence of a real life. They post all day and night. I ride every chance I get, and post when I can't be riding {like at work...oopps...here comes the boss now}

One bad thing about lurking in VC, is it makes all the other forums seem boring and overly polite.;)

What do you mean by advocacy?

I think that there is discussion of relevant issues. But the vast majority of discussion is about the topics that people disagree on.

Well, I don't mean endless arguments about the merit of JF's work. Our in-fighting here only reflects poorly on cyclists as a whole. Not that as a body we should not be able to air issues out, but we also shouldn't be picking scabs every chance we get either.

There are people that come in this forum to read about how to be better cyclists and how to be a better advocate for their sport to increase numbers of those enjoying it, retain their legal rights and to teach others to be better, safer cyclists. I don't think that we are serve that reader or the cycling community very well.

I think we need a poll.

Well, I don't mean endless arguments about the merit of JF's work. Our in-fighting here only reflects poorly on cyclists as a whole. Not that as a body we should not be able to air issues out, but we also shouldn't be picking scabs every chance we get either.

There are people that come in this forum to read about how to be better cyclists and how to be a better advocate for their sport to increase numbers of those enjoying it, retain their legal rights and to teach others to be better, safer cyclists. I don't think that we are serve that reader or the cycling community very well.


+1000.

(#1)...it might well be more reasonably considered to be representative of those who think about the issues involved in bicycle transportation and who are active in their communities.

(#2) We here have a serious discussion of the real issues regarding bicycle transportation, at least in the American context. I think that it is reasonable to say that the content of these discussions represents the best thinking in the field...

(#3) In a way, these discussions depict today's foremost thoughts on bicycle transportation, and that constitutes knowledge, which is valuable...

The above was deliberately written without advancing any conclusion as to the most reasonable conclusions to be drawn from these discussions. Just accept that there has been value in them.

#1. As someone who has been involved in cycling advocacy (and remains active) since 1970. I respectfully disagree. The discussions in the A&S forum and in this sub-forum in particular are not representative of most contemporary urban planning and advocacy, which is more accurately represented by groups like "Livable Streets" (http://www.livablestreets.info/) and "Transportation Alternatives" (http://www.transalt.org/index.html). These groups are far more wholistic in their approach to the integration of bicycles as part of a broad spectrum of solutions to the flaws of our transportation infrastructure with particular attention to congested urban areas.
They are far less narrow minded, remarkably resourceful, open minded and accepting of new ideas and approaches than anything I have seen in this sub-forum. I very occasionally lurk here and very seldom post in this sub-forum because it is usually a waste of valuable time spent either biking, involved in real advocacy, doing my laundry, watching a movie or reading a good book.

#2.see the above. I think anyone posting, lurking or obsessing over the VC sub-forums is deluding themselves if they think they are actually providing useful information, promoting cycling or safe cycling practices. This sub-forum seems devoted to those who love to argue. The fact that in the year and a half I've been reading and posting in BF the same arguments have been spinning their wheels with no forward momentum at all is all the evidence I need that it is for entertainment value at best. I liken it to putting your bike on a trainer, riding it for 5 hours and claiming to have ridden a challenging century. It's not the same thing. Sure it's a workout but it's a virtual workout- you haven't really gone anywhere.

#3. Again, I respectfully disagree. If the same 2 dozen people who post here regularly spent a like number of hours riding their bikes, talking with other cyclists, attending advocacy meetings, writing to legislators it would be infinitely more valuable. And open minds and civil discourse would be evident in these threads, which in my opinion is sorely lacking.

#1. As someone who has been involved in cycling advocacy (and remains active) since 1970. I respectfully disagree. The discussions in the A&S forum and in this sub-forum in particular are not representative of most contemporary urban planning and advocacy, which is more accurately represented by groups like "Livable Streets" (http://www.livablestreets.info/) and "Transportation Alternatives" (http://www.transalt.org/index.html). These groups are far more wholistic in their approach to the integration of bicycles as part of a broad spectrum of solutions to the flaws of our transportation infrastructure with particular attention to congested urban areas.
They are far less narrow minded, remarkably resourceful, open minded and accepting of new ideas and approaches than anything I have seen in this sub-forum. I very occasionally lurk here and very seldom post in this sub-forum because it is usually a waste of valuable time spent either biking, involved in real advocacy, doing my laundry, watching a movie or reading a good book.

#2.see the above. I think anyone posting, lurking or obsessing over the VC sub-forums is deluding themselves if they think they are actually providing useful information, promoting cycling or safe cycling practices. This sub-forum seems devoted to those who love to argue. The fact that in the year and a half I've been reading and posting in BF the same arguments have been spinning their wheels with no forward momentum at all is all the evidence I need that it is for entertainment value at best. I liken it to putting your bike on a trainer, riding it for 5 hours and claiming to have ridden a challenging century. It's not the same thing. Sure it's a workout but it's a virtual workout- you haven't really gone anywhere.

#3. Again, I respectfully disagree. If the same 2 dozen people who post here regularly spent a like number of hours riding their bikes, talking with other cyclists, attending advocacy meetings, writing to legislators it would be infinitely more valuable. And open minds and civil discourse would be evident in these threads, which in my opinion is sorely lacking.

Ah, yes, Livable Streets and Transportation Alternatives, two of the big noises in the anti-motoring sphere, reasonably "representative of most contemporary urban planning and advocacy," which is precisely what's wrong with them. Anyone who thinks that "contemporary urban planning and advocacy" will do anything significant for the welfare of cyclists is deluded. That field is primarily opposed to motoring, with, unfortunately, the side effect of being harmful to cyclists. And, in fact, not able to do much good for cyclists by producing new cities that are suited to bicycle transportation.

Ah, yes, Livable Streets and Transportation Alternatives, two of the big noises in the anti-motoring sphere, reasonably "representative of most contemporary urban planning and advocacy," which is precisely what's wrong with them. Anyone who thinks that "contemporary urban planning and advocacy" will do anything significant for the welfare of cyclists is deluded. That field is primarily opposed to motoring, with, unfortunately, the side effect of being harmful to cyclists. And, in fact, not able to do much good for cyclists by producing new cities that are suited to bicycle transportation.

Why is the side effect being harmful to cyclists? Most traffic reduction and urban renewal plans make explicit their inclusion of cyclists. I am not familiar with these two groups; Portland seems to have its own homegrown version of this (as well as cycling advocacy). How does their planning make things worse for cyclists?

I don't think you all want to know what most cyclists think of "advocate" or so-called "VC" cyclists. :lol:

Why is the side effect being harmful to cyclists? Most traffic reduction and urban renewal plans make explicit their inclusion of cyclists. I am not familiar with these two groups; Portland seems to have its own homegrown version of this (as well as cycling advocacy). How does their planning make things worse for cyclists?

"Traffic reduction and urban renewal plans make explicit their inclusion of cyclists." So what? The question is how they do what they do, and what it accomplishes. Too many traffic reduction schemes simply make driving worse, and, since cyclists are drivers, that affects them adversely as well. Urban renewal? What's that for cyclists? Cyclists need good roads and equitable treatment, and much of these things is against good roads. As for producing a new variety of city, one that was as good for bicycle transportation as the cities of 1920 to 1950, there's no chance of that.

Our problem is how best to get along in the cities that we have, with the improvements in both facilities and in policies that are reasonably possible, to accommodate bicycle transportation as it is best done. There's none of that going on.

"Traffic reduction and urban renewal plans make explicit their inclusion of cyclists." So what? The question is how they do what they do, and what it accomplishes. Too many traffic reduction schemes simply make driving worse, and, since cyclists are drivers, that affects them adversely as well. Urban renewal? What's that for cyclists? Cyclists need good roads and equitable treatment, and much of these things is against good roads. As for producing a new variety of city, one that was as good for bicycle transportation as the cities of 1920 to 1950, there's no chance of that.

Perhaps, but this is you opinion. Whether it can or not remains to be seen, but people need to make the first step. With all due respect, urban renewal might make traffic worse in some respects, but it makes living conditions better. I'd wagger that if you do it right, everyone gets what they want. Part of urban renewal, correct me if I am wrong, is to take the focus off of cars and back onto living conditions. Perhaps it is misguided, perhaps not. But it is hardly detrimental to cyclists. In fact, taking the focus of an area off of cars and onto cyclists, pedestrians, and residents tend to make conditions better for cyclists.


Our problem is how best to get along in the cities that we have, with the improvements in both facilities and in policies that are reasonably possible, to accommodate bicycle transportation as it is best done. There's none of that going on.

Well this is just a difference in opinion about the appropriate scope of change. While getting along better in the cities we have, it is also not outside the scope of bicyclist advocacy and urban renewal to change the cities to what would be more liveable. More liveable also equates to more bikeable, which is a good thing.

I guess John thinks the current road system is just perfect, no flaws, and it works equally well for everyone. I'd say that's a delusional attitude coming from someone in deep denial.

As much as I love what technology offers us, do we really represent a true sample of the cycling community?Regulars to this forum aren't representative of much of anything except regulars to this forum.

The fact that few cyclists are regulars here simply shows what good sense most cyclists have.

It is unfortunate that there is no way to separate discussion of the vehicular riding style (which is widely accepted and which I practice and endorse) from VC-ism (which is quite controversial and political and really quite absurd and counter-productive in many ways).



We're sort of the unofficial "leper colony" of BF?

Not so much a leper colony; more like a looney bin. And it's contageous; no one who visits here is immune.

Separating VC-ist pissing matches from the main Advocacy and Safety forum has improved A & S significantly. The existance of a looney bin is a good thing; it reduces the level of lunacy elsewhere.

Not so much a leper colony; more like a looney bin. And it's contageous; no one who visits here is immune.
Like the Monopoly jailhouse, you must be, "Just Visiting." :D

I don't think you all want to know what most cyclists think of "advocate" or so-called "VC" cyclists. :lol:

This is the Zealotry forum, my darlin - they want to tell us what to think, how to ride, where to ride, etc. for our own good, because they are the only true, serious cyclists, while the rest of us are mere incompetent amateurs with an inferiority phobia! :rolleyes:

Like the Monopoly jailhouse, you must be, "Just Visiting." :D

If I could quit landing on Boardwalk, I might be able to hold on to my Get Out of Jail Free card, not to mention my clothes. :eek:

Perhaps, but this is you opinion. Whether it can or not remains to be seen, but people need to make the first step. With all due respect, urban renewal might make traffic worse in some respects, but it makes living conditions better. I'd wagger that if you do it right, everyone gets what they want. Part of urban renewal, correct me if I am wrong, is to take the focus off of cars and back onto living conditions. Perhaps it is misguided, perhaps not. But it is hardly detrimental to cyclists. In fact, taking the focus of an area off of cars and onto cyclists, pedestrians, and residents tend to make conditions better for cyclists.



Well this is just a difference in opinion about the appropriate scope of change. While getting along better in the cities we have, it is also not outside the scope of bicyclist advocacy and urban renewal to change the cities to what would be more liveable. More liveable also equates to more bikeable, which is a good thing.

Any cyclist is perfectly free to advocate changes in the urban pattern. Go ahead and do it, just don't bring your concerns as a side issue into cycling affairs.

Any cyclist is perfectly free to advocate changes in the urban pattern. Go ahead and do it, just don't bring your concerns as a side issue into cycling affairs.

Why not? Why are these separate issues? I don't see them as such.

Originally Posted by John Forester
Any cyclist is perfectly free to advocate changes in the urban pattern. Go ahead and do it, just don't bring your concerns as a side issue into cycling affairs.


Why not? Why are these separate issues? I don't see them as such.

Since you suggested urban renewal as fit subject for cyclist discussion, let's go with that. Here is a typical situation. Westbridge was a thriving industrial neighborhood from WW 2 on, for forty years. However, by 1980 the industries had become outdated and had declined into bare profitability, or losses. On the other hand, the demand for office space elsewhere in the city is high, with vacancies low and rents high. The proposal is to consolidate the Westbridge landholdings and build office towers. What, Brian, is the cyclist's interest in this, will anybody care, and would the cyclist input change the course of events? I suggest that the probability that cyclists' input would redirect such a proposal is zero.

Or consider a more extreme change. We all know that the cities of the first half of the last century were better for cycling than the present ones. What might be the probability that input from cyclists regarding cycling conditions would cause any city to rebuild itself into a simulacrum of its 1925 form (although presumably larger because of population increase)? The probability is zero.

Originally Posted by John Forester
Any cyclist is perfectly free to advocate changes in the urban pattern. Go ahead and do it, just don't bring your concerns as a side issue into cycling affairs.



Since you suggested urban renewal as fit subject for cyclist discussion, let's go with that. Here is a typical situation. Westbridge was a thriving industrial neighborhood from WW 2 on, for forty years. However, by 1980 the industries had become outdated and had declined into bare profitability, or losses. On the other hand, the demand for office space elsewhere in the city is high, with vacancies low and rents high. The proposal is to consolidate the Westbridge landholdings and build office towers. What, Brian, is the cyclist's interest in this, will anybody care, and would the cyclist input change the course of events? I suggest that the probability that cyclists' input would redirect such a proposal is zero.

Or consider a more extreme change. We all know that the cities of the first half of the last century were better for cycling than the present ones. What might be the probability that input from cyclists regarding cycling conditions would cause any city to rebuild itself into a simulacrum of its 1925 form (although presumably larger because of population increase)? The probability is zero.

Obviously those parts of what concerns urban renewal are a subset of all urban renewal. But as I've said before, zoning, traffic patterns, and street design are all under the umbrella of urban renewal and are all very much a concern for cyclists and bicyclist advocacy. Perhaps this has already been clarified by the other post in the other thread. I'll admit that I start getting slightly confused when the same topic crops up in multiple threads :).

I guess John thinks the current road system is just perfect, no flaws, and it works equally well for everyone. I'd say that's a delusional attitude coming from someone in deep denial.
This is classic VC contrarianism: asserting absurd extreme mischaracterizations of a VC advocate's position.

Apparently, addressing their actual position is too difficult, or would require revealing logical inconsistencies in their own position.

Perhaps because figuring out the actual position of vc zealots is like trying to identify the true appearance of a shape shifter.

Why not? Why are these separate issues? I don't see them as such.

truly, these separate entities are part of the whole. it is all of a piece. all is one.
breathe deeply.
ooooommmmmmmm.

Ah, yes, Livable Streets and Transportation Alternatives, two of the big noises in the anti-motoring sphere, reasonably "representative of most contemporary urban planning and advocacy," which is precisely what's wrong with them. Anyone who thinks that "contemporary urban planning and advocacy" will do anything significant for the welfare of cyclists is deluded. That field is primarily opposed to motoring, with, unfortunately, the side effect of being harmful to cyclists. And, in fact, not able to do much good for cyclists by producing new cities that are suited to bicycle transportation.


Thank you for reminding me that I post here for entertainment purposes only.:rolleyes: