Advocacy & Safety - I see another thread has been deleted...

Obviously must have devolved into a mess that warranted deletion. That'll get the message out. Well done.

<turns and walks away shaking head and muttering something about stupid idiots>

Yep, that's exactly what happened.

what a mess. when's the sophistic thread derailer going to get banned?

RIP, Tim.

Tim's Memorial is today. RIP Tim.

Concerning the thread, I understand that there is a lot of discussion going on between the moderators about this topic.

John

My thoughts are with those that are mourning.

Regarding the topic, my last comment in the deleted thread was, "End this thread. Please end this thread." That was a plea to those that were posting, not to those that were moderating. I hope it didn't contribute to the decision to delete the thread.

The OP was concerned that friends and family of the fallen cyclist might see what the thread had become.That may have been a motivating factor in deleting it.

RIP Tim, our thoughts are with you, your family, and friends.

I hope it didn't contribute to the decision to delete the thread.
Kudos to you if it did. Somebody had to put a silver dagger through the beast and chase off the ghoul.

Regardless of the thread deletion, I would still like to follow the story after.... Can someone provide links to any Oregon site that has more info?

Thanks

RIP Tim.

http://bikeportland.org/2007/06/14/memorial-service-planned-for-tim-odonnell/

East Hill

I posted this in the etiquette thread, I'll cross-post it here.

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¢.

I think I suggested this a long time ago. Leave the 'analysis' to another thread that outlines the circumstances but not the parties involved, leaving the original thread for simply paying respects.

Think of it as how you would act at a funeral, versus how you would act at the bar afterward.

One thing I see far too often is that the discussion has nothing at all to do with the incident. The posters involved seem to find ways to twist what happened around to support some agenda. I have a big problem with using someones death as ammunition in the same old VC/Helmet/whatever debate.

So, could we adopt the suggestion that tactical analysis discussions be confined to the VC sub-forum? That extraneous material be pruned from this thread, and left simply as a thread for paying respects?

East Hill

So, could we adopt the suggestion that tactical analysis discussions be confined to the VC sub-forum? That extraneous material be pruned from this thread, and left simply as a thread for paying respects?

East Hill
Tactical analysis sticky:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=309954

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

Aye, the problem is no one seems to be using it :( .

edit: sorry, I just realised you had only just put that up. Thank you very much, Tom.

East Hill

Aye, the problem is no one seems to be using it :( .

edit: sorry, I just realised you had only just put that up. Thank you very much, Tom.

East Hill
No worries, I also have a memorial thread up in this forum. Look up in the stickies!:D

No worries, I also have a memorial thread up in this forum. Look up in the stickies!:D

Thank you again, Tom.

There's a place for analysis, and there's a place for remembering fellow cyclists.

East Hill

Tactical analysis sticky:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=309954
But in the OP you call for no speculation. How can there be analysis without speculation?
I mean, assuming that the statements in any report about the incident are factual is arguably speculation in and of itself.

Further, often we may not know what happened, but it can be deduced that one of N things happened, and we can analyze the situation N different ways, each way assuming (speculating) one of the N things happened, and perhaps ruling some them out based on other speculted-to-be-true facts.

Analysis of crashes without speculation makes no sense and has no purpose in an advocacy and safety forum.

And what is the purpose of a memorial thread in an Advocacy & Safety forum? This seems like the last place we should have such a thread, for it only works against advocacy (citing cyclist deaths without explanation of how they could have been avoided only makes cycling seem more dangerous than it is) and does nothing for safety.

To provide a venue, HH. Very simple. There is also an analysis thread posted over in VC. Feel free to use that for post incident analysis. That way the issues can be kept separate.

But in the OP you call for no speculation. How can there be analysis without speculation?
I mean, assuming that the statements in any report about the incident are factual is arguably speculation in and of itself.

Further, often we may not know what happened, but it can be deduced that one of N things happened, and we can analyze the situation N different ways, each way assuming (speculating) one of the N things happened, and perhaps ruling some them out based on other speculted-to-be-true facts.

Analysis of crashes without speculation makes no sense and has no purpose in an advocacy and safety forum.Numerous people are constantly reminding you that you're speculating, and you are always responding that it's not speculation. Nobody here would have a problem with speculation in an analysis thread if the poster would just acknowledge that it's speculation-- without qualifying it by saying "But this is the only way it could have happened"-- and not fact.

Numerous people are constantly reminding you that you're speculating, and you are always responding that it's not speculation. Nobody here would have a problem with speculation in an analysis thread if the poster would just acknowledge that it's speculation-- without qualifying it by saying "But this is the only way it could have happened"-- and not fact.
OK, HH made a valid point and if identified as speculation, then cool!It just got started, so things will thrash themselves out. Those are initial starting points. Let it develop naturally and it can be a good tool.

Thanks, Blue Order.

Hey Tom, have you forgotten that there already is a memorial sticky thread here?:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=232887

Maybe the two could be combined, but I would suggest doing that in the original location (general cycling discussion) since that is the older thread.

Hey Tom, have you forgotten that there already is a memorial sticky thread here?:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=232887

Maybe the two could be combined, but I would suggest doing that in the original location (general cycling discussion) since that is the older thread.
Don't have to combine, I had forgotten about it though, thanks! I'll just post a link to it!:D

Don't have to combine, I had forgotten about it though, thanks! I'll just post a link to it!:D Perfect. Makes much more sense. And can we ask that there be no memorial threads in this forum since that topic is not pertinent to safety or advocacy?

Perfect. Makes much more sense. And can we ask that there be no memorial threads in this forum since that topic is not pertinent to safety or advocacy?
give it up, or don't you have any sense of shame at all?!?!?

:o

:mad:

Perfect. Makes much more sense. And can we ask that there be no memorial threads in this forum since that topic is not pertinent to safety or advocacy?A thread informing us about a fallen cyclist is more than a memorial. It may allow us a forum to discuss tougher penalties for the driver's actions, or alert us to the trial date, or to letters to the editor, or about a pending bill.

You refuse to get a clue. People are unhappy with you because of the way you derail thread after thread to pursue your own personal agenda, without regard for the circumstances-- a cyclist's death-- or the facts. The manner in which you pursue your agenda is vulgar.

It's time you got a clue.

Perfect. Makes much more sense. And can we ask that there be no memorial threads in this forum since that topic is not pertinent to safety or advocacy?
You should give some thought to the fact that you seem to be the only one here who has a problem with this situation.

You should give some thought to the fact that you seem to be the only one here who has a problem with this situation.
Help me out. What would be the purpose of any memorial thread in an advocacy and safety forum?

Using a particular tragedy as a real-world example of why a certain law should be supported or opposed makes sense. But a memorial thread in which comments relevant to advocacy and safety are not welcome. What is the point of that in an A&S forum? Please explain.

I posted this in the etiquette thread, I'll cross-post it here.

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¢.
I posted my technical analysis on the recent tragedy in Oregon here. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=309954)

Help me out. What would be the purpose of any memorial thread in an advocacy and safety forum? Please explain.

It's simple. A memorial thread's existence in itself is a strong and sobering message to be vigilant and bike safely using whatever method or philosophy you choose.

Some messages just don't need speculation, "technical analysis", theories, debate, arguing, choosing of sides, pontificating, "science", hindsight, repetition, politics, insults, or even replies and "advocates" at all to have a positive effect.

If you've never visited the Vietnam Memorial or the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. you should really check it out. You'll understand what I'm saying.

I posted my technical analysis on the recent tragedy in Oregon here. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=309954)
I advise everyone to please not discuss this particular incident any further with serge. everything that needs to be said has already been said. any further discussion, and particularly discussion with serge, is simply pointless.

I advise everyone to please not discuss this particular incident any further with serge. everything that needs to be said has already been said. any further discussion, and particularly discussion with serge, is simply pointless.
I just want to point out that Randya will disagree with just about anything I ever have to say.

I just want to point out that Randya will disagree with just about anything I ever have to say.
no I won't. :D

you just haven't said much that I agree with yet, I'm still waitin'

no I won't. :D :lol:


"An argument isn't just contradiction."

"It can be."

"No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition."

"No it isn't."

:D

I've got a headache!

no I won't. :D

you just haven't said much that I agree with yet, I'm still waitin'
Your beauty, intelligence, sexiness and high moral character is conveyed in the words of yours posts, and in between the lines, and help make this forum an irresistable place to spend a lot of time for many, certainly me.

Your beauty, intelligence, sexiness and high moral character is conveyed in the words of yours posts, and in between the lines, and help make this forum an irresistable place to spend a lot of time for many, certainly me.
+1 for trying

:)

Help me out. What would be the purpose of any memorial thread in an advocacy and safety forum?

Using a particular tragedy as a real-world example of why a certain law should be supported or opposed makes sense. But a memorial thread in which comments relevant to advocacy and safety are not welcome. What is the point of that in an A&S forum? Please explain.
What's the point of wakes and funeral services? Why not proceed directly to disposing with the corpse?

Help me out. What would be the purpose of any memorial thread in an advocacy and safety forum?

Using a particular tragedy as a real-world example of why a certain law should be supported or opposed makes sense. But a memorial thread in which comments relevant to advocacy and safety are not welcome. What is the point of that in an A&S forum? Please explain.
Aside from what I posted above, since you were so insistent in citing popular opinion to continue your remarks in the Oregon thread, oughtn't you yield to public opinion here? Or does this have to be formally
proposed in its own thread as a poll? I think it's pretty clear which way the wind is blowing on this, though.

It's simple. A memorial thread's existence in itself is a strong and sobering message to be vigilant and bike safely using whatever method or philosophy you choose.

Some messages just don't need speculation, "technical analysis", theories, debate, arguing, choosing of sides, pontificating, "science", hindsight, repetition, politics, insults, or even replies and "advocates" at all to have a positive effect.

If you've never visited the Vietnam Memorial or the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. you should really check it out. You'll understand what I'm saying.

Are you kidding me? If a few A&S members hadn't piped up in that Oregon thread offering some useful speculation, all that would have come of that thread is "it's getting worse out there." No one aside from a few posters wanted to believe at all that cyclists should be extra vigilant when moving left in a lane regardless of the legality of a motorist interfering with their intended path. When nobody gets the real message, don't you think it's useful for someone to point it out?

Hmmm, just went looking for a reply to my earlier post and apparently it was deleted. I guess we can't disagree with the mods here or what?

Are you kidding me? If a few A&S members hadn't piped up in that Oregon thread offering some useful speculation, all that would have come of that thread is "it's getting worse out there." No one aside from a few posters wanted to believe at all that cyclists should be extra vigilant when moving left in a lane regardless of the legality of a motorist interfering with their intended path. When nobody gets the real message, don't you think it's useful for someone to point it out?
You overestimate the value of your "speculation" badly.

Hmmm, just went looking for a reply to my earlier post and apparently it was deleted. I guess we can't disagree with the mods here or what?
Plenty of people disagree with mods or post things that are controversial. Generally, the people who aren't ******y about it don't get their posts deleted. I've been on both sides of the line, FWIW. Perhaps you crossed it?

You overestimate the value of your "speculation" badly.

You say this as if complaining about motorists with poor driving habits is useful.

Plenty of people disagree with mods or post things that are controversial. Generally, the people who aren't ******y about it don't get their posts deleted. I've been on both sides of the line, FWIW. Perhaps you crossed it?

Kemmer posted that HH was forcing an agenda in that thread and I replied that while that's a valid opinion that I don't think it's appropriate for a mod to take sides like that. I don't remember my exact words but I wasn't particularly harsh although someone did respond in a negative manner to my post (his reply was also deleted). I don't think there was anything "******y" about my post although just using that word makes me feel a bit like one.

You say this as if complaining about motorists with poor driving habits is useful.
No, I say this as if your "contibutions," such as they are, are completely valueless. Don't read too much into what I post in this subforum. I'm usually pretty upfront.

No, I say this as if your "contibutions," such as they are, are completely valueless. Don't read too much into what I post in this subforum. I'm usually pretty upfront.

Valueless as in:

a. so obvious as to not be worth saying
b. misleading/dangerous
c. not applicable
d. other?

Please explain.

Are you kidding me? If a few A&S members hadn't piped up in that Oregon thread offering some useful speculation, all that would have come of that thread is "it's getting worse out there." No one aside from a few posters wanted to believe at all that cyclists should be extra vigilant when moving left in a lane regardless of the legality of a motorist interfering with their intended path. When nobody gets the real message, don't you think it's useful for someone to point it out?

I wasn't referring to the Oregon thread. I was answering what the usefulness of a memorial thread is in an advocacy and safety forum.

My opinion on the Oregon thread was posted on the Oregon thread. Like that one, I've posted what I have to say and will now let others share their views without me having to dissect and/or refute them endlessly point by point by point.

I wasn't referring to the Oregon thread. I was answering what the usefulness of a memorial thread is in an advocacy and safety forum.

My opinion on the Oregon thread was posted on the Oregon thread. Like that one, I've posted what I have to say and will now let others share their views without me having to dissect and/or refute them endlessly point by point by point.

Ok, I know some people here would like to treat any posting of a cyclists death as a memorial thread of sorts. I confused that with what you and HH had been discussing.