View Full Version : What do you think of the VC/A&S Split?
A short time back, this VC subforum was split off from the main Advocacy & Safety subforum. Now that some time has passed, what do you think of the split? Has it increased or decreased the utility and pleasure you get from Bikeforums?
It has made the A&S main forum readable once again.
It's like a honey pot.
Given the whini... complai... noise, I mean, from people who haven't realised VC is the only way to go it was a good idea to split the forum.
Bekologist
07-15-07, 10:09 PM
"the only way to go" :roflmao: remember mark,
you can ride vehicularily in a bike lane.
vehicular cyclists can lobby for bike infrastructure including bike lanes in their communities , dude.
Notice how, many use the sub-forum to just take pot shots at those that support VC? Note the "I am a VC advocate & I am OK" and "Freaks of the VC Label" threads.
Notice how much of the discussion in the VC sub-forum is really about bike lanes? There is even a "Bike lane advocates only:" thread in the VC sub-forum.
Forum admin has taken a position that VC is the problem, not bike lane advocates, by relegating VC to a sub-forum rather than making it a VC/BL sub-forum.
Bekologist
07-15-07, 11:08 PM
yes, the vc ideologue party line against bike infrastructure is the problem, cbhi. you are correct.
remember, vehicular cyclists can ride in a bike lane; vehicular riders can advocate for bike infrastructure.
yes, the vc ideologue party line against bike infrastructure is the problem, cbhi. you are correct.
remember, vehicular cyclists can ride in a bike lane; vehicular riders can advocate for bike infrastructure.
As the OP, I feel that right now YOU are the problem. You've made no attempt to respond to the topic of this thread. No matter what the real topic is, every post you've written in the last month is a mindless rehash of "vehicular cyclists can ride in a bike lane; vehicular riders can advocate for bike infrastructure". Over and over and over and over....
I remember when I thought your posts were some of the best on BF, even though I often disagreed with your POV. Now I don't even know if I agree or disagree, since I usually can't understand what you're bringing to the discussion.
Bekologist
07-15-07, 11:51 PM
i think the real problem is the vc idealogues denial, roody.
and what you are complaining about is my ardent vc POV, what I have been bringing to this subforum- reality based acceptance of bike infrastructure as something vehicular cyclists can use and embrace, dude.
is this subforum a good thing? well, if it weren't for a certain 'vc' idealogue mucking up advocacy and safety with incessant, overbearing prattle about inadverdant drift and powerweaves, there'd have been no reason for this subforum.
As the OP, I feel that right now YOU are the problem. You've made no attempt to respond to the topic of this thread. No matter what the real topic is, every post you've written in the last month is a mindless rehash of "vehicular cyclists can ride in a bike lane; vehicular riders can advocate for bike infrastructure". Over and over and over and over....
I remember when I thought your posts were some of the best on BF, even though I often disagreed with your POV. Now I don't even know if I agree or disagree, since I usually can't understand what you're bringing to the discussion.
+1
i think the real problem is the vc idealogues denial, roody.
and what you are complaining about is my ardent vc POV, what I have been bringing to this subforum- reality based acceptance of bike infrastructure as something vehicular cyclists can use and embrace, dude.
is this subforum a good thing? well, if it weren't for a certain 'vc' idealogue mucking up advocacy and safety with incessant, overbearing prattle about inadverdant drift and powerweaves, there'd have been no reason for this subforum.
Cool, now I know your opinion of the reasons for the split. If you want to, you could speak to the question of what you think the effects have been. For example, have you noticed less "overbearing prattle" or whatever?
KrisPistofferson
07-16-07, 01:25 AM
It has driven Head to start posting in PnR, where I usually post, but other than that, I think it has made A&S much more palatable. The new forum is sort of like a "bike lane" for people who can't post without getting bogged down in purely theoretical la-la land instead of just getting out there and riding their bike on the asphalt.
Daily Commute
07-16-07, 03:16 AM
It's mostly kept the anti-VC group from getting the vapors everytime someone posts a VC idea in A&S, so I think it's a good thing. ;)
I think the split has been great. It keeps most of the pointless ideological arguments out of the main A&S forum. Those who want to engage in petty bickering have the subforum where they can get on their soapboxes and/or bash each other's political views without giving too many un-initiated A&S readers heartburn.
If VC-ism were just about the riding techniques and style that have become known as 'vehicular cycling' (and are widely accepted), then there would be little disagreement, and no need for a sub-forum.
But VC-ism isn't just about riding techniques and style (in fact, it's hardly about that at all)-- VC-ism is most fundamentally about politics and ideology -- ideology based on a combination of faith and sophistry (not on science as VC-ists so often claim) and founded on the writings and absurd psychological and social theories of a charismatic and messianic 'founder of the faith.' If VC-ism doesn't derseve its own subforum, I can't imagine what would.
It's virtually impossible to discuss VC (or, for that matter, even put the letters 'VC' in a thread title) without starting an ideological and political debate. Hence the need for a subforum.
AlmostTrick
07-16-07, 08:51 AM
The split has been more successful than I expected. I doubted it would help at first, but now that it's been a while I'd say it has made the forum better. There are a handful of posters that just love to debate the same VC/BL subjects endlessly. Now these people have their own sandbox to play in. While I find both forums interesting, I definitely spend more time in the main A&S forum, as it is often more relevant to my riding experiences.
I don't think the split makes much difference.
The quality of the threads is still uneven, ranging from good to horrible for no discernible reason. Too many people on both sides of the argument still resort to name-calling and mindless repetition, and there's still too little effort to find common ground or advance past irreconcilable differences. There is still a lot of wit and intelligence in some posts, and passionate arguments are still sometimes entertaining (and sometimes even enlightening).
However, my impression is that the volume of posts is down, especially from casual members, and especially on the A & S side. Have others noticed this too?
Forum admin has taken a position that VC is the problem, not bike lane advocates, by
relegating VC to a sub-forum rather than making it a VC/BL sub-forum.
Interesting that you identify it as a THING (VC) versus a group of people ("bike lane advocates") and not as a people-vs-people issue.
I felt the split was a poor choice, and I feel it has worked poorly. In effect this means anything which may or may not be VC-related gets posted to the new sub-forum, so we have a very arbitrary devision by topic. However it was pretty much indicated that the VC sub-forum was meant as a free-for-all, a place for the inevitable flame wars, so a division by behaviour. I'm not sure what was accomplished - I don't think the quality of the forum(s) has improved any, or that people are any better behaved.
The bottom-line, to me: this is still not a welcoming or productive place to hold a discussion, and still not somewhere I feel I could post a question (e.g. comment on this situation/street design) and have any hope of a productive discussion. Bloody entertaining sometimes, though.
I think generally it's been a good thing. keeps the bickering mostly confined. but it still is not a good place for noobs or others to get information, because any answers will inevitibly start an argument among the warring factions.
It's mostly kept the anti-VC group from getting the vapors everytime someone posts a VC idea in A&S, so I think it's a good thing. ;)
+1 :roflmao:
John Forester
07-16-07, 07:09 PM
But VC-ism isn't just about riding techniques and style (in fact, it's hardly about that at all)-- VC-ism is most fundamentally about politics and ideology -- ideology based on a combination of faith and sophistry (not on science as VC-ists so often claim) and founded on the writings and absurd psychological and social theories of a charismatic and messianic 'founder of the faith.' If VC-ism doesn't derseve its own subforum, I can't imagine what would.
It's virtually impossible to discuss VC (or, for that matter, even put the letters 'VC' in a thread title) without starting an ideological and political debate. Hence the need for a subforum.
It is certainly correct that the discussion is based on differences in social and psychological theories, rather than on technical aspects of safe and effective cycling.
The puzzling aspect of the discussion is that so many of those who believe, at least for themselves, that cyclists should ride according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles (vehicular cycling) fail to advocate learning that skill and governmental policy based on it, and instead strongly advocate the bikeway system that is contrary to vehicular cycling and is based on the popular superstition that bikeways make cycling safe and the skill of vehicular cycling unnecessary. Furthermore, it is equally puzzling that these bicycle advocates, as they call themselves, are largely motivated by opposition to motoring, while simultaneously advocating the bikeway system that motorists invented to make motoring more convenient.
The most reasonable hypothesis concerning these puzzles is that of the motorist-created cyclist-inferiority superstition. While the bicycle advocates call these hypotheses absurd, they have been unable to produce a more persuasive hypothesis that explains the facts.
Bekologist
07-16-07, 07:42 PM
psycho babble masquerading as bicycle advocacy. where's a bucket?
Cyclaholic
07-17-07, 03:13 AM
The VC/BL/Cycling infrastructure 'debates' on these forums are meaningless in the real world but they're a morbidly interesting bit of entertainment, like slowing down to look at a car wreck.
I like the split, I know exactly where to find the car wrecks and the subsequent punchups between the drivers.:D
Forum admin has taken a position that VC is the problem, not bike lane advocates, by relegating VC to a sub-forum rather than making it a VC/BL sub-forum.
Actually, it was the bickering any time VC was mentioned.
The Human Car
07-17-07, 08:31 AM
It is certainly correct that the discussion is based on differences in social and psychological theories, rather than on technical aspects of safe and effective cycling.
The puzzling aspect of the discussion is that so many of those who believe, at least for themselves, that cyclists should ride according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles (vehicular cycling) fail to advocate learning that skill and governmental policy based on it, and instead strongly advocate the bikeway system that is contrary to vehicular cycling and is based on the popular superstition that bikeways make cycling safe and the skill of vehicular cycling unnecessary. Furthermore, it is equally puzzling that these bicycle advocates, as they call themselves, are largely motivated by opposition to motoring, while simultaneously advocating the bikeway system that motorists invented to make motoring more convenient.
The most reasonable hypothesis concerning these puzzles is that of the motorist-created cyclist-inferiority superstition. While the bicycle advocates call these hypotheses absurd, they have been unable to produce a more persuasive hypothesis that explains the facts.
If we were to take an inventory of the current national conditions we would have something like:
Education: It is horrible and is producing far too many wrong way and sidewalk cyclists. There is minimal national effective effort to correct the errors, to date this is the best I have seen for elementary kids: http://www.activelivingresources.org/links4.php (You heard this first from a non VC purist.)
Engineering: While still not ideal it is scoring better for cyclists’ safety and welfare then general education. Complete Streets, The National Center for Biking and Walking and many, many more organizations are delivering the message that car centric designs at the cost of biking and walking are very bad. Politicians, engineers are all starting to get the message that bikes belong. An effective message is being delivered without a mention of the cyclists’ inferiority superstition and generally there is little evidence that (solely) bike lanes are diluting that message. (Note: there are some areas that are overly installing bike lanes at any cost even poorly implement ones and that IMHO is really not good and should be fought. Best designs promote best acceptance of cyclists.)
Being anti-bike lane or being anti anything has never been a very effective way to promote a cause. Being pro something is the most effective way. The LCI program is horribly ineffective, the lack of good systematic attack on the poor cycling instructions received in elementary schools and received by this nation’s car drivers is what should be in the forefront of the VC purists not cyclists inferiority superstition.
Bicycle advocates basically can only grab nationally recognized campaigns and push them locally. It is not our fault that you have failed to produce anything of substance with your cyclists’ inferiority superstition and anti-bike lane rants. I strongly suggest that you, not us that have failed to properly identify the problem as well as an effective solution. (Note: That logically you may have identified the problem but without an effective solution it is worthless and if you are trying to solve a problem that is not really the problem that too is worthless.)
Actually, it was the bickering any time VC was mentioned.
Seems the same happens every time bike lane is mentioned, and why so much bike lane talk in the VC forum? Why are bike lane only threads allowed in the VC forum?
And of course you don't fan the flames, do you Brian?
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=271630
sbhikes
07-17-07, 07:23 PM
I think the split was good. It keeps the VC interference away from the other forum where it kept creeping in because some people have an agenda and feel they need to push it everywhere, no matter how inappropriate. Now that we have this forum we can argue, interfere and push agendas to our heart's content.
Seems the same happens every time bike lane is mentioned, and why so much bike lane talk in the VC forum? Why are bike lane only threads allowed in the VC forum?
And of course you don't fan the flames, do you Brian?
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=271630
Well, I just checked the moderator's queue, and there are no complaints of threads that don't belong in VC, so I guess I don't know what you're going on about.
As far as fanning the flames, that link was a joke. There is no question that Serge and John Forester are the Dustin Hoffman and Al Pacino of BikeForums.net. Until I see them both in the same room, I will consider them to be one and the same.
Brian Ratliff
07-17-07, 11:54 PM
Notice how, many use the sub-forum to just take pot shots at those that support VC? Note the "I am a VC advocate & I am OK" and "Freaks of the VC Label" threads.
Notice how much of the discussion in the VC sub-forum is really about bike lanes? There is even a "Bike lane advocates only:" thread in the VC sub-forum.
Forum admin has taken a position that VC is the problem, not bike lane advocates, by relegating VC to a sub-forum rather than making it a VC/BL sub-forum.
Since when was the anti-bike lane position and vehicular cycling connected at the hip? I am a vehicular cyclist. I happen to have a reasonable disagreement with the anti-bike lane people. Are you trying to ban me from talking about this disagreement (and a possible resolution) within the scope of vehicular cycling?
Helmet Head has migrated to P&R....just sayin'...
;)
Since when was the anti-bike lane position and vehicular cycling connected at the hip? I am a vehicular cyclist. I happen to have a reasonable disagreement with the anti-bike lane people. Are you trying to ban me from talking about this disagreement (and a possible resolution) within the scope of vehicular cycling?
Since most of the heated discussion includes bike lanes, why is the sub-forum not titled the VC/BL sub-forum?
If this really is to remain the VC sub-forum, then the bike lane threads should be in A&S (like the "Bike lane advocates only:" thread) or a seperate BL sub-forum should be opened.
I was not the one who created the "VC sub-forum". Discuss your problem of it not being a VC/BL sub-forum with admin.
VC is what has been banned in any other forum. Bike lanes are pretty much left alone in A&S, commuting, etc.
Bekologist
07-18-07, 08:38 AM
as they very well should be. bike infrastructure is a reality.
VC is a diatribe.
Helmet Head has migrated to P&R....just sayin'...
;)
I thought he was supposed to be on vacation from BF this month...??
VC is what has been banned in any other forum. Bike lanes are pretty much left alone in A&S, commuting, etc.
you guys did it to yourselves.
Brian Ratliff
07-18-07, 11:03 AM
Since most of the heated discussion includes bike lanes, why is the sub-forum not titled the VC/BL sub-forum?
If this really is to remain the VC sub-forum, then the bike lane threads should be in A&S (like the "Bike lane advocates only:" thread) or a seperate BL sub-forum should be opened.
I was not the one who created the "VC sub-forum". Discuss your problem of it not being a VC/BL sub-forum with admin.
VC is what has been banned in any other forum. Bike lanes are pretty much left alone in A&S, commuting, etc.
I didn't name the forum title; why are you asking me? Why wouldn't bike lanes be discussed in VC? One of the conflicts between various factions, if you will, of vehicular cyclists is the use of on-road facilities; it seems perfectly appropriate to discuss them in the VC sub-forum.
It seems as though you wish that there be a section of bike forums that is like chainguard; only for those of like minds about controversial topics. Might I suggest that you subscribe to chainguard and stop trying to dictate what people can talk about and where on these bike forums. It is hardly my fault, or anyone's here, that members wish to discuss bike lanes or other points of controversy amongst themselves and people of differing opinions.
What was HH's point of view on this? When challenged on making every thread into a VC advocacy thread, he replied that it was a public forum where people can talk about whatever they choose in response to any topic (within some broad guidelines, of course). That sword cuts both ways and I suggest you follow his advice.
And, by all means, if you want to talk about something other than bike lanes, please, start a thread of your own on a topic of your choosing and dictate in the OP that you wish to start from a common assumption of your preference. I think that your wish will be granted, and if not completely, you can always choose to ignore the offender's comments or put in a comment to the effect of "keep it on subject."
Brian Ratliff
07-18-07, 11:07 AM
In fact, CB, I just looked and it seems as though the last thread that you started all by yourself was in April and it wasn't in the VC or A&S forums. Don't complain about the direction the conversation evolves if you fail to take your part in leading it!
joejack951
07-18-07, 12:28 PM
Brian, I agree that we should have broad guidelines in regards to what should or should not be discussed in specific forums. I believe CB's beef is that because the masses complained so much about VC advocacy in the A&S forum, VC got it's own sub forum. That same sub forum now seems to attract all of the same people who complained about the VC oriented discussions and some of those same people even post about completely off topic stuff in the VC sub forum. It's a valid complaint given the nature of the existence of this sub forum.
as they very well should be. bike infrastructure is a reality.
VC is a diatribe.
But he has a point... this is indeed the VC subforum, discussions RE bike lanes don't belong here.
Further, I have never found it to be an issue of VC vrs BL... although strict VCers are anti-BL... which means that they bring their own BL discussions to the VC forum.
I have always found cycling to be adaptive... meaning I use BL when and where they work and are appropriate, I use VC when and where it works and is a appropriate, and I use paths when and where they work and are appropriate. And rarely I might even use a sidewalk (though it is often inappropriate)
But the bottom line is that BL should not be a part of a discussion here until a VC makes an anti-BL comment.
disagree. anti-facilities is so much a part of the radical VC agenda that it should be considered to be a part of the VC "philosophy-dogma". as such, it's fair game to discuss them....
sbhikes
07-18-07, 07:50 PM
Anti-bike lanes is the heart and soul of VC. If it wasn't for that, they wouldn't have anything to say at all because people who use bike lanes can and do ride vehicularly.
Anything that keeps Mossy John and his lackey boot licker Tom Cruise out of my hair I'm all for.
Brian Ratliff
07-18-07, 09:45 PM
Brian, I agree that we should have broad guidelines in regards to what should or should not be discussed in specific forums. I believe CB's beef is that because the masses complained so much about VC advocacy in the A&S forum, VC got it's own sub forum. That same sub forum now seems to attract all of the same people who complained about the VC oriented discussions and some of those same people even post about completely off topic stuff in the VC sub forum. It's a valid complaint given the nature of the existence of this sub forum.
I guess I'd recommend you start some threads that redirect the discussion in the direction you desire. When I start a thread in this forum, I view it as a thread that is to be discussed within the paradigm of vehicular cycling. But the topic is of my own that I want to discuss. If there are aspects of vehicular cycling that you wish to discuss, please, by all means, provide an OP for us. You can even specify that bike lanes are not involved. Or you can specify that we start the discussion from the point of view that bike lanes are not to be considered.
So, please, start some threads for us.
FWIW, the problem with the VC advocates were that the discussion always gravitated towards VC advocacy even when the OP didn't wish it. It was about respecting the OP's that people started, and it was about a group of people who wished to discuss and debate aspects of VC and a separate group of people who wanted to discuss more general advocacy and safety topics. The split was good and has, for the large part, has worked as designed, IMHO.
It makes more sense if you see that there are differences of opinions between vehicular cyclists between all sorts of topics, bike lanes included. I do not see anti-bike lane advocacy as a limus test for being a bonified vehicular cyclist. I don't see why this forum should assume this either.
disagree. anti-facilities is so much a part of the radical VC agenda that it should be considered to be a part of the VC "philosophy-dogma". as such, it's fair game to discuss them....
Then it is far game to also limit the bike lane discussion to it own sub-forum or a combined VC/BL sub-forum. Prohibiting both VC and BL discussion in any other forum. Fair for one, fair for both.
Then it is far game to also limit the bike lane discussion to it own sub-forum or a combined VC/BL sub-forum. Prohibiting both VC and BL discussion in any other forum. Fair for one, fair for both.
Nope. Just keep VC out of A&S.
Anti-bike lanes is the heart and soul of VC. If it wasn't for that, they wouldn't have anything to say at all because people who use bike lanes can and do ride vehicularly.
That is plan wrong and you know it.
True when they are riding as if the strip were not there.
Along time ago, VC advocates asked why bike lanes were needed, other than to move cyclist out of the way of motorist, and the bike lane advocates I knew went off the deep end.
You have sort of followed the same path in your discussions in the forums. Some time ago, you posted the difficulty you sometimes had with an up hill left turn on your bent. I complemented you on your VC riding for both of the methods you used to make that turn.
It is likely that today, you would consider then same post, a pro-Forester insult aimed at you.
Nope. Just keep VC out of A&S.
Your bias shows quite clearly Brian.
Brian Ratliff
07-18-07, 10:10 PM
Your bias shows quite clearly Brian.
CB, why don't you just stop complaining and start a thread of a topic of your choosing?
CB, why don't you just stop complaining and start a thread of a topic of your choosing?
When will you stop complaining and trying to dictate the protocal for everyone else posting?
Bekologist
07-18-07, 11:48 PM
what about vehicular cyclists that advocate for bike lanes?
what about vehicular cycling on roads that already have bike lanes?
what about vehicular cycling in bike lanes in a vehicular manner?
all topics fitting for the VC forum, and not somewhere else.
Like I said, the VC/BL sub-forum.
Your bias shows quite clearly Brian.
Good, then I've made my point. Thanks.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.